Unions
 

I saw this on a website I frequant and thought it was a pretty interesting post about an exchange between Howard Dean and Chris Matthews

If some one can get the same pay/benefits as some one who is in a union I say more power to them. I should not have to be in a union to work.

Translation should be:

DEAN: Because Unions give a lot of money to Democrats.

I would say it depends on the union but i know for a fact that some unions are worth every red cent


if you dont want to join the union find a new job

I wouldn't mind seeing some more context.

MATTHEWS: Because it’s a free country.

Sure, but this is also a republic. And workers of that facility decided at some point to unionize and wanted everyone to be part of the union to make the working bargaining rights stronger.

I can't say I don't want to abide by some rules the federal government set up, but I still want to be part of the country.

If you want to work for some place that is unionized, join the union. Otherwise take your skills somewhere where others money and efforts didn't give you a job as well as they have it.

Why would a non-Union worker in a Right-To-Work State get the same benefits and pay as someone in a Union? The reason there are few Unions in Right-To-Work States is because employers hire non-Union workers for a fraction of the cost of Union workers. They are under no obligation to hire anyone at any specific wage other than minimum wage laws.

unions, as they presently exist, secure jobs, benefits.....etc. for one group at the expense of all others. If they force the price of labor up to a high level it means less jobs total. Anyone that cannot provide that level of value is forced out of a job and the incentive for those that remain to increase productivity is lost as that will force the loss of more jobs.

Or it just cuts into the massive profits that the executives would otherwise use to... say throw lavish birthday parties with company money on mediterannean islands with hula dancers and ice sculptures of penises that serve vodka.
...And using company money to buy umbrella racks for $500,000


________
Hopefully you all get that reference.

Didn't get the reference but still laughed my ass off. What's it from? :D

At one time in this country unions played a very important role - over the years greed, corruption, and power happy unions have taken away from the employer his ability to run his own business - when one cannot run his own business he either gets out, or takes his business elsewhere. The last I remember hearing unions were bemoaning the fact that many union jobs no longer existed because the business had relocated to somewhere else. Looks to me like you should't bitch about something being gone when you were the one that ran it off!!!

Everyone has a right to be paid what they are worth for the job that they do - but when those demands exceed an employer's ability to pay they become blackmail. Unions in most parts of the country have blackmailed themselves out of existance, or are in the process of doing so.

CL, Tyco's chief executive did just that. The party in the mediterannean cost, I think 2 million dollars. It was a birthday party for his wife done using company funds.

Same with the umbrella holder.

It was just sick.

Look it up on google.

'Tyco scandal'

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s679070.htm

Sardinia is the second largest Italian Island.
Kozlowski defrauded the company for 1 billion dollars. You think that might be enough for the Union to disperse some benefits and pay raises?

Wow, vodka-spewing ice penises. I could never imagine something like this. Amazing! I give the sick bastard credit for coming up with something so bizarre. :)

Not just any penis either. Michaelangelos David.


I'd like to see the guy hung by his testicles over the Brooklyn Bridge. He deserves it.

Right next to Ken Lay.

And transfers that ability to the union chiefs. I'd say it's as prevalent if not more prevalent in unions.

There are plenty of examples of this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

http://www.iww.org/~iw/mar1999/stories/Porkchop.html

And it goes on in virtually every union across the nation.

I support Railroad Coal Shovelers 202 and Local Candlemakers 409. Damn diesel engines and lightbulbs.

What does Tyco's wacky former CEO have to do with corrupt Unions?

Nice straw man.

Come on now, just as not every corporate executive is guilty of crimes like Tyco's CEO, neither are the leaders of every union guilty of crimes like that of that Teacher's Union executive.

I think executives, like Tyco, Enrons, and Worldcoms who blow company money show that there IS plenty of money in these companies. Even the straight ones. Money that could easily be used by Unions for wages and benefits. And that unionizing will not bankrupt a company or force it to cut back on employees.

That's why I brought it up. Not a strawman. Pointing out the availability of funds.

There is far more oversight to corporate actions than union actions. Is it an accident that the mob has been tied to so many union organizations? Nope. There is little oversight, lots of power, and plenty of cash. I'm sure I stepped over the boundary by saying "every" union but I still believe it is far more prevalent in unions than in corporate America.

I don't even know where to start with this one. Anyone care to help me out?

I seriously doubt that. But if you find one, a study on the averages would be welcome.

But, it is easier for employees to depose their union leadership than it is to get rid of a corrupt CEO or CFO.
And there is no ten million dollar severance for a deposed union leader.

What about the links to the mob? Accidental? Of course not.

Even when unions are put under the strictest oversight they get out from under it.

http://www.house.gov/hoekstra/32698.html

How many corporations, after being put under orders to clean up the financials and being overseen by an Independent Review Board continue with the same practices?

Unions cause unemployment.

I say again, unions cause unemployment. 'Nuff said.

Everything was linked to the mob from the 1930's through the 1980's

You ever hear of MARTIN'S food stores? They are the parent company of GIANT supermarkets.
That company was started by the mafia.

When you get to something as big as Teamsers, yeah there can be better chances for opportunistic people to take advantage of it. But the same happens at corporations all across the country. The minimal damage a union does pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars of defraudment that goes on every year by the corporate offices. Enron was a huge player in Californias crash, tens of billions of dollars in damages easily, Tyco 1 billion.

Teamsers? 17 million.

Unions, by far, create employment and create a better quality of it too.

Superbelt, are you saying that greedy evil capitalist pig corporations cost us untold billions, while unions cost us only seventeen million dollars?

That's an interesting statistic.

How much do you suppose unions cost in terms of the unemployment they create? Not to mention the inefficiency and waste they create... can you quantify that for us as well?

False. Unions cause unemployment. This is a basic economic fact.

I'm saying specific greedy companies cost us tens of billions of dollars while the largest union in the world was defrauded of only 17 million for a comparison of the relative impact between the two.

A CEO or CFO has far greater ability to manipulate funds than someone in a communal union.

Unions caused huge leaps of employment in this country as their demands for pay and benefits fueled the greatest economy in the world. The opportunities afforded to the common man drew in the best and the brightest from around the world to work here because they knew that they would have a better chance to succeed under our systems.

Unions create jobs. Unions create the best jobs.

Welcome, to the Desert of the Ignored.

A fact largely missed by many...

This premise is flawed on several levels. Instead of deconstructing your quote and addressing it piece by piece, I think we might instead benefit from a quick lesson in economics.

Unions, by design, act in a manner to reduce competition among laborers. In other words, they are anti-competitive. Their express purpose is to create labor market inefficiencies.

Unions accomplish this, in part, through "collective bargaining" tactics, which is much like collusion, except that it is considered legal and therefore unnecessary to keep secret. Essentially, through these means, a controlling majority of the suppliers of a specific good seek to limit its supply or institute and enforce a price floor on said good. In the case of unions, that good is labor. It is similar to the tactics employed by OPEC.

Again, technically it's not collusion because they don't make a secret of their conspiracy. But there's a word for that too. Coercion.

Threats of work stoppages or strikes are other coercive techniques employed by unions.

Again, none of this is opinion - it's plain fact, which union members and their sympathizers freely admit.

Now let's explore how these tactics impact the supply and demand of labor.
Obviously we'll have to keep it simple, as this topic alone could fill a book. Nonetheless, we should cover some basics.

I assume that you are at least high school educated and you know what a supply curve and a demand curve look like (remember - price on the vertical axis, quantity on the horizontal axis). Where these curves intersect is where, in a free market, your equilibrium price will be established. If we're talking about the supply of labor, we're faced with a relatively inelastic supply curve. In other words, one can't simply produce more labor by, say, breeding workers, nor can one easily reduce supply by killing them. So, in the short term (excluding long term demographic trends), the supply curve remains pretty much constant.

The demand curve for labor, however, is much more elastic. It is influenced primarily by output per unit of labor, and the marginal revenue analysis. In other words, the degree to which an employer can increase revenue per additional associated increase in costs of production will impact that employer's demand for labor. Changes in this variable precipitate a movement along the demand curve. This is important, because the marginal revenue analysis is impacted also by the marginal demand of the good being produced. The healthier the economy, the wealthier the consumer, and the wealthier the consumer, the higher the marginal demand for most goods. The higher the marginal demand for goods, the higher the marginal revenue for production. The higher the marginal revenue, the higher the demand for the labor required to produce that good. Basically, this is why a strong economy creates jobs. It's self-reinforcing.

Anyway, the demand curve for labor can also shift (a shift in the demand curve itself, as opposed to a movement along the curve). It can shift whenever a large consumer of labor develops or employs new technologies or methods that reduce the amount of labor required per unit of output. In the eighties, you may recall, labor unions in the automotive industry fought the modernization of assembly lines, which employed new mechanized processes. Laborers feared that this new technology would shift the demand curve to the left. To the layperson, this meant that people would be replaced by robots and wages would fall. Now, what actually ended up happening is that through innovation and growth, laborers found even higher paying jobs at the factories making the robots, but that's another story.

So, before we get too carried away with this lesson in macro-economics, let's get back to the topic of unions. If you're still unclear on supply and demand, please follow this link: http://www.econweb.com/MacroWelcome/sandd/notes.html

Now, unions create a kink in the supply curve in an effort to raise the price of labor, or create a price floor for labor. As we already established, they do so through anti-competitive practices and coercion. The figure below illustrates graphically the concept of a price floor set above the equilibrium price.

http://www.econweb.com/MacroWelcome/...rice_Floor.gif

You may notice that this graph also depicts a surplus. The surplus in this case is labor. A surplus of labor is high unemployment.

Again, not conjecture, but simple economic fact.

I don't think I need to explain how price floors on labor and the associated increase in unemployment is a bad thing for productivity, profitability, wages, prosperity, and economic growth. It's pretty apparent already.

It's also similar to the tactic practiced by every large business in the world. Use your percentage of control of a certain market to bargain for a better price.
That is capitalism at work! Thanks.

It's a workers right to strike. An employer COULD just fire them all and hire new non-union workers. But then they gain the ire of the general public, and lose all that experience and skill. Again, that is capitalism at work! Yay for america!

Working on a graduate degree. Basically what you posted is gobbledegook.
In a union, the laws of supply and demand deteriorate. Instead of the employer having all the power, the workers mass together to get collective bargaining power. They begin to dictate some of the supply, since they are what is being marketed to the business.

Again, that IS capitalism.
You want it some other way? Go live in a Dictatorship.

Simple economic fact is, if you create an attractive environment for workers, as Unions have, you will attract the most intelligent, hard working, and driven people from around the world. This will increase your countrys wealth because you took it away from your competitors. As long as you keep the working environment better than your competitors you will have DEMAND for workers.

Oh you might be surprised. :rolleyes:

I know as a young child, me and my friends were very unhappy with the way those damn unions made it so we couldn't get jobs anymore. Maybe you could bust out one of those fancy diagrams to explain the effect that ceo and stockholder greed has on unemployment.

Unions, while less than perfect, came about because employers were exploiting laborers. Remeber the 80 hour work week? I'm sure the economist of those days fainted between exclamations of, "how is the economy going to survive a minimum wage?!!!" or "how is industry to remain productive when they have to pay their workers more for working over a certain number of hours?!?!?!"
As soon as greed is no longer a problem in the world, unions and overpaid ceos will no longer be a problem. But don't for a moment pretend that the world would be a better place without unions. The idea that it is thoeretically all right for an employer to squeeze every last drop of blood from a worker before discarding his/her body in the trash simply because the laws of supply and demand allow it is disgusting.

How do you come up with the $17 million figure?

From just that article, oversight "...did virtually nothing while the union's net worth plummeted from a value of more than $150 million in 1991 to less than $700,000 in 1997"

They had to RAISE union dues to cover the loss so you can about double that. If you'd like to group all companies together into one unit then the same will have to be done for all unions.

There are far more checks and balances in the corporate world, including investors, stock analysts, auditors, the SEC, and, of course Boards of Directors. Most union bosses rule unilaterally and their elections are quite well orchestrated when compared to how a new CEO is typically chosen. Members of the union who speak out against union leadership see their hours cut, their seniority ignored, and unless they fall in line often end up a casualty of the "concessions" made by the union leadership to the union employers. Stock owners, analysts, and the SEC are not ruled in the same way.

How many of the best and the brightest from around the world have flocked to union jobs? Most unionized jobs are not the ones that the best and brightest strive for.

Without a doubt unions helped to improve workers safety, created benefits for their members, helped to give voice to employees who would never have been heard in the past. But, they are not the sole reason that our economy is where it is.

Well said.

The labor market now is a far cry from what it was when labor unions were created to fight for worker safety and against abuse. When was the last time you heard legal workers complaining about being forced to work an 80 hour week with no bathroom breaks in deplorable conditions in the US? Unions had a lot to do with the OSHA laws that are in place now to insure worker safety but the contributions they make now are far less than what they were originally created to address.

There are anti-trust laws in place to prevent that sort of behavior - to ensure that competition remains in place and that substitute products remain available to consumers. When unions require all workers to join, there is no more labor competition and no substitutes are available to the consumers of labor (employers). This is not capitalism at work, Superbelt. Need I remind you that capitalism relies upon competitive market forces, whereas unions try to remove those competitive forces? No, this is not capitalism, it's collectivism.

Indeed. However, unions are actively trying to take away that ability by requiring all workers to join.

Goobledegook? Good luck with that degree, Superbelt.

Precisely. You just said exactly what I've been saying. Anything that causes the laws of supply and demand to "deteriorate" (in this case by trying to implement a floor on the price of labor through coercive tactics) is, by definition, anti-competitive. Again, it's not capitalism, it's collectivism.

Cute. But there has never been a capitalistic dictatorship. I could, however, name a few collectivist dictatorships if you're interested.

Unions don't create an attractive environment for workers, Superbelt. In fact, without the employers, there would be no environment for workers, period. Unions cause unemployment by raising the cost of labor to a price above its equilibrium. That creates the exact opposite of what you're describing. A better working environment comes about through efficiency and productivity gains, as well as economic growth and prosperity. Unions fight efficiency and productivity, and they tax economic growth and prosperity.

Feel free to dismiss my "fancy diagrams." If you want to ignore this free lesson in economics, you may feel free to do so. Further, I am not trying to defend corporate malfeasance, just illustrating how unions cause unemployment.

The world would be a better place without unions. Individuals - employees and employers - must remain free to make mutually beneficial arrangements - free from force or coercion. Anything less would be unfair and dishonest. And spare me you're little drama about squeezing blood out of someone's body and throwing him in the trash. That's just silly. If someone doesn't like his job, he can quit. There are no slaves in this country. But there is ample work, ample wealth, and unemployment benefits for those who lose work. We owe our wealth, our benefits, and our prosperity to the greatest economy in the world - an economy built by free trade, competition, and the profit motive - the very things the unions seek to destroy.

i've been in two different unions and this is absolutely not the case. Laziness was totally rewarded in these settings (or i should say productivity certainly was not encouraged). Half the people I worked with should have been fired 10 times over. They did nothing but complain the only people that had justification for complaining was their employer who couldn't get rid of them. The other crappy thing is when a strike was planned we were all bullshitting after work and i'm like "fuck that - i don't have any problem with this company, I'm coming to work whether or not you guys strike" of course i was threatened afterwards. One time i went through the union and filed a complaint, at the encouragement of my union rep. Nothing was done. Any other time i had a problem I decided "fuck the union - I'm going to management", problem solved (not that this happened too frequently). The union loves you if your a good potential lawsuit for them (i.e. - a minority), and will defend your position whether or not it's justified. Please don't try to twist that into being a racist comment - it is/was an indisputable fact at this union.

Shoutout to Neil Bush!

While we're attacking all facets of America's economic structure, lets not forget the S&L scandal that we're all still paying off and probably will continue to pay off for many decades.

Since the dollar is no longer based on any standard, and because money works simply because we implicitly agree to use it (if you actually believe in what John Locke says about property), then we're stuck in a system that is dependent on governmental regulation because the government has essentially constructed the economy through its policies. Anything is allowed, out of fairness or greed, and the regulating facets of government is part of this "anything is allowed" system. We are basically stuck with this system unless some revolution happens. Right now unions are not creating a lot of new improvements for workers, but historically they have done a lot. Those changes do stay with us, and for all of us that work and earn our money, we should be happy for the labor movement. Upswings and downswings in the state of labor seems to be quite a pattern in US History.

(Though don't get me wrong, I not exactly what you'd consider to be a William Jennings Bryan...)

The issue with labor is this - we have free movement of all facets of production, but labor does not have mobility. This is why the European <b>Union</b> is actually working well as a (relative to ours) laissez-faire system. Labor is mobile in the EU, there is not much incentive to export jobs from one country to another, the "race-to-the-bottom" isn't as prevalent, and countries are inspired to make incentives for workers to come to (or stay in) their country as well as businesses (instead of just businesses). "What? You not going to pay us shit or give us benefits? We're moving to France." Of course, recessions tend to help the businesses win out over labor. The unified currency does help against severe inflation, at least.

And one more thing -"Because it's a free country" doesn't settle well with me as a good excuse for anything. Things are allowed and not allowed by agreements, "because it's a free country" suggests a system of anarchy that simply does not exist.

Unemployment rates:

U.S. - 6.0%
Germany - 9.7%
France - 10.5%
Italy - 8.7%
Spain - 8.9%

Thanks apechild, I was thinking of making a long post on why European labor is screwed up, but you covered it pretty well.

So you think if we got rid of the collective bargaining ability of Unions that employers would just even keep the STATUS QUO out of the goodness of their hearts?

Every year I hear of stories of employers trying to take away their employees health insurance or force them to pay 300-600 a month to have it and so on.

Unions are still protecting our rights as workers today.

Bush wanted to do away with our overtime laws and allow an employer to force their employees to work as much overtime as necessary and not have to compensate them with their comp time for up to 5 years!!! That would have been a huge step backwards and thank god it failed.

We still need to stay vigilant and protect ourselves from opportunistic people.

Unions protect america.

Superbelt,
Are you willfully ignoring the economic facts I have presented? And please remember, employers can't force their workers to do anything. If anyone is trying to use force, it's the unions.

Now I'll tell you what would happen if unions disappeared:

Wages for a few ex-union workers would drop to their equilibrium levels (fair market wages)
Employers would use their wage savings to hire more workers and increase output
Unemployment rates would fall (as would the tax burden of everyone supporting unemployment benefits)

But wait - there's more!

Competition among workers would improve productivity and efficiency
Productivity and efficiency gains would translate into increased profitability
Increased profitability would create greater growth opportunities
Growth opportunities would lead to greater demand for labor
Greater demand for labor would lead to increased hiring and higher wages

Want more? OK

Higher wages would lead to higher disposable income levels and increased personal spending
Increased personal spending would result in more economic growth opportunities
Growth opportunities would lead to greater demand for labor
Greater demand for labor would lead to increased hiring and higher wages

And so on...

Unions protect America, you say? Wrong. Unions protect themselves at America's expense.

One of the first things i learned in microeconomics was that economics is largely guesswork based on flawed models. This was not a conclusion i came to on my own, rather it was offered by my prof, a phd in econ. So you can show your diagrams and give your free lesson in economics, but don't pretend that what you say is accurate all of the time, or even most of the time. You can say this and i can say bullshit.
Explain to me again the economic effect of greedy ceos and stockholders on employment.

It may be that in some circumstances, unions contribute to unemployment, but that is far from their only function. You can dismiss union activities as contributing to unemployment and leave it at that, but then you should also dismiss everything else that also contributes to unemployment. It is silly not to acknowledge the positive effects of unions.

Basing an argument on pure economical theory and ignoring any kind of actual human problems inflates economics to be more of a priority than it should be. It makes perfect economic sense to not hire women-men don't need maternity leave- think of the boost it would give to our economy. Or how about the economic sense it would make if employers could refuse to hire members of the national guard- i'm sure many small business are hurting from the employees they were "coerced" into hiring because they couldn't say no. It would also make good economic sense to completely eliminate any kind of restrictions on how employers can deal with their employees. Think of all of the jobs we could create if we could tap into the sweatshop markets. Even though all of these things might make sense for the economy(some of you may argue that they don't) following those paths would be a step back for our society.
My point is that you can't use economic theory to bolster a perspective in an argument about the real world because, as some people would say, econ is autistic.- it can count real well, but it generally misses the point.

I'd have to say that the best working conditions seem to be created not by unions or corporations, but by the tension between unions and corporations. The musician's union is pretty much the strongest one there is, and they get their way a surprising amount of the time. However, often we find that we win battle after battle only to make the war more and more hopeless. It is true that a union's first duty is to itself - otherwise they would fade away and not do anyone any good. This is also why they can do destructive things when their power gets to the point that they are basically unopposed.

No Unions=

Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
Child Labor
Black Lung
Sweat Shops
60 hour week
No overtime

Why don't you look at it like this. Unions are just corporations in reverse. Many people can band together to form a single unit in a corporation, so the workers should also be able to form their own unit to bargin with it. You need either both to keep a balance. Without a group of workers to bargin with the bosses, you get feudalism with the workers treated like crap. If the workers have all the power, you get a system like communism and no more work is created. Of course, when you have two things that balance each other there will be extreme cases, like the Tyco exec or the corrupt union. The Unions will try and get the workers more money than their worth, and the bosses will try and pay the workers less than what their worth.

apechild, your assuming that the owners are good people. The best system is one that accounts for the worst actions in people, not the best or right ones. Thats why our system of government works so well. It has checks and balances to try and keep the worst of us from doing too much harm.

I've got to agree with that. A good economy is not an end in itself, it is a means to improving or maintaining our quality of life, and there is a limit to what costs we should endure in its pursuit. What good is a good economy if workers are suffering as a result?

However, that's only applicable to the extent that unions are actually protecting workers' legitimate needs rather than arbitrarily inflating the cost of labor. While redravin's list of tragedies is daunting, I don't think the disappearance of unions, now, would send us back to those mishaps.

Collective bargaining of unions does not help non unionized labor and only helps those union members that remain employed. I most certainly do not think that corporations will keep the status quo. Most corporations are moving away from unions as fast as they can anyway. That in itself means that the status quo will not remain.

Without a good economy there will be few workers. Workers are consumers. Employment allows consumers to spend. Consumers, to a very great extent, ARE the economy.

Heh, Corporations have been "moving away" from unions since the day the first union was created. It's in there own self interest.

And we can all see where that effort has led.

Yeah, if you live in China. http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif
It isn't 1920, and there are many laws to protect people. If people are dumb and let someone take advantage of them I could care less. They deserve it. Unions served a purpose once, but they don't now.

Unions can be good, but 95% of the time they're complete shit. I'm part of a union and I don't like it. My union protects all the lazy fucking drunks and potheads who get high at work and do nothing. The other guys who don't get high sleep half of their day. Do these lazy fucking pieces of shit deserve a decent job making a solid paycheck and great insurance? Hell no, but the union protects them and creates an us against them mentality that makes me want to vomit. I have been fucked over numerous times by my union. I would go into detail, but the important thing is my union cost me nearly $10,000 this year. :mad: And on top of that they take $50 a month from my ass.

If I didn't have a union my employer could get rid of all the losers and I could get a raise. I'm limited to my contract right now. What's bullshit is there aren't 6 guys combined that I work with who can produce like me, but I can't make any more cash than the lazy fuckstains that I work with. I could go on and on about how much I hate unions, but I don't feel like typing out that much shit because it's just gonna piss me off. Once I get some bills squared away I will quit and get a job where there isn't a union. This is my one and only union job. I'll never do it again.

Where has that effort lead?

A happier america!
:thumbsup:

What are some of the most heavily unionized industries out there?

Let's see...

There's the steel industry, which is decaying faster than any tariffs can ever protect it...

There's the auto industry, where the Big 3 are now facing enormous underfunded pension liabilities and are teetering on the brink of ratings downgrades that would bring their bonds below investment grade ("junk" bonds)...

There's public education and the infamous NEA - and we all know how well teachers are paid in this country and how much the quality of education has improved...

There's the airline industry which is, well, mostly bankrupt (United, US Air just emerged, American and Delta are on the brink... and remember Eastern? TWA? Pan Am?)...

Draw your own conclusions...

There is also the trucking industry

Service peoples industry

Construction

All heavily unionized, all doing great!

Auto Industry includes Harley Davidson, which is unionized and is doing swimmingly. You can make an argument that the american auto industry is lagging because we fall behind most foreign car companies in fuel efficiencies, and overseas, where fuel prices are much higher that is a terrible disadvantage. Even here our fuel prices are becoming more and more of a factor in the past couple years.

You never worked in a Union did you Superbelt. :rolleyes:

Sure, you can make that argument, but that isn't the argument being made by the investors, analysts, and rating agencies whose job it is to evaluate the company's ability to survive.

Look, my point here is not to engage in a pissing match or win an internet argument, but to present the facts and the economic realities as I know them. You can ignore what I have to say, you can dismiss my words if you like, but if the point here is to learn from constructive discussion, then you really should re-read my economic analysis objectively. Especially the supply and demand curve / price floor / surplus concept. This is basic, textbook stuff, and it would do you a lot of good to understand it. Again, my participation in this discussion is not motivated by some narcissistic desire to "win," but to share some of what I have learned during my past ten years in finance and economics.

The information is there. Take from it what you will...

I was a teamster. My father is a Teamster.

My father is the second highest paid Truck driver in Pennsylvania. He works for UPS.

I worked for UPS as a package handler for 3 years until I finished college and started my career as a Transportation Planner for my county.

Thank god for the Union fighting to keep the benefit for part timers of tuition assistance. That helped me out more than most people could ever know! :D :D :D :D

Harley Davidson is hardly an example of union success. It was not long ago that it was on deaths door. It was the management of the company (non-unionized) who turned it around and it is the 50 year old professional (also mostly non-unionized) who buy the products.

The service person's union is hardly the reason that the industry is growing. It's the mostly non-union people who don't want to do the work themselves that are driving the growth. Look at the wages members of this union are still typically paid. I think the average in Manhattan, New York is somewhere around $30 to $40k. Hardly, if even, liveable there.

Construction is doing well, again not because of unions but because of the purchasers of construction services.

The trucking industry, again, not because of the unions but because shipping is increasing (people buying stuff again).

Now, we can get into why these are the unions who are growing. These jobs can't be shipped overseas. Someone in China obviously can't empty the waste baskets in the Empire State building, build the skyscraper down the block, or deliver the newly purchased refrigerator bought on ebay. Overall trends in the economy and specific industries drive the success of these industries, not union practices.

In the failed or failing unionized industries, corporations could not compete internationally on price due to lower production costs abroad.

sixate, why don't you find a new job if you hate it so much. Is it cause you don't want to lose your seniority?
;)
I don't understand what you are trying to say apechild. You're not trying to win some internet discussion- the point is to learn from constructive discussion. But still, if we just read what you said about textbook economics we'd know that you were right?
I'm sorry, but i know that a lot of econ is bullshit. Econ is brilliant when it comes to explaining what happened a month ago, but dismal when it comes to accurately predicting next week.
I read your textbook econ post and i concede that your figures may be accurate in theory, but barring any actual real-world examples it remains just that, theory. And when was the last time econ was ever very accurate just in theory? Which economic system are your diagrams based? Free market? Competitve oligopoly? Both exist in the american economy and both may have different properties with respect to unions.
Besides, if it were about learning from constructive discussion you'd acknowledge that unions do more than just cost people jobs just as i've acknowledged the truth in some of what you say, i.e. that unions can also have a negative impact on the common worker.

in addition to my personal experiences with unions, this is why i don't like unions in a nutshell

the union limits the potential of the company to succeed but eliminating motivation for it's employees to succeed. Your benefits are directly and solely proportional to the amount of time you have been there (which in the union is undoubtedly indefinite - assuming you don't kill one of your co-workers). You view your employer who pays you as the enemy, and the union who does nothing but take your money as your savior.

This is sort of microcosmically (would that be a word??) my main problem with liberalism in general. Those in power, as much as they scream to care about the little guy, need the little guy to need them. Throw 'em a couple bones, make them believe they can't do it on their own.

The argument that if you don't like the union find another job, what's that about. The union doesn't frickin employ you. What if you already like the job. Like one of the previous posters suggested, if your dumb enough to let yourself get taken advantage of......who's fault is that. If that's occuring, then you shouldn't like the actual "job", get off your ass and find a new one.

..and superbelt - we have something in common!!!!

I worked for UPS, hadda load 4 frickin trucks, from 3am to 7am or so my last couple of years in college. It was a bitch, but a fun way to start the day (especially unloading those 40 ft tractor trailors), goin all out for 3-4 hours straight as soon as you wake up.

Anyway - I should make my point i guess (I never got tuition reimbursement!!!! that's fucked up...). But from the company's standpoint - if they were trying to take that benefit away. I'd imagine in order to make a significant impact in your tuition over the course of 3 years of college that would have meant contributing thousands and thousands of dollars. Probably more than your total income, great for you but what kind of sense does that make. I don't know when you worked there but i worked there from 94-97, part time at 8.50 an hour. I don't see how they are obligated to pay for your tuition - especially when you clearly are not going to college to benefit UPS, like you said your outta there now. It'd be different if you were going to college and your education were somehow in the future going to be put to use for that company.

I made 8.50 working there too.

Perhaps things are different district to district. But in Central Pa we got tuition assistance.
Actually all the trucking companies in my area tout the fact that they offer tuition assistance in their radio ads to attract employees.

We are actually a 'nexus' of trucking here. 40% of the US population is reachable from here within 8 hours. That makes this a very attractive place to locate your warehouses etc.

Perhaps the high level of trucking firms necessitated that once one company did it, they all had to to keep up.

I could give a flying fuck less about my seniority! What good is seniority without a fucking pension and 401K. If a union can't even get me that then what fucking good is it? The only reason I stay right now is I have bills I need to pay off and I'm not gonna chance quitting and getting a new job until they're paid off.

BTW, I'm in the Steel Workers union, and they're all corrupt. Those fuckers don't help out at all. My company violates my contract all the time, and the union does nothing about it. The fucked up part is I can't even get a lawyer because there isn't a lawyer on the face of the planet that can do shit. They all say go to your union. I have to rely on them. Unions are a big reason that many places close down, and it won't be long before it happens where I work.

Your steel problems are more a function of government subsidized steel being dumped in the US than anything a union could do.

I note you ignore all his claims about the union itself.

No, if he's right. I can see that that would be a frustrating place to work.

But the main reason those businesses will fail is because american is becoming too big to support too much raw goods manufacturing anymore and the dumping of cheap steel in america.

My company doesn't make steel. We use steel to make shit. We're a fab shop. So foreign steel dumping helps us because we can get better steel and get it a lot cheaper. Those stupid steel tariffs almost killed us because American steel is fucking expensive, and it's complete junk, and you ask why it's expensive and shitty steel.... Because unions drive up labor costs, which wouldn't be a bad thing if it wouldn't make guys lazy. I know a guy who works at a place that makes steel. It's called WCI, and he pulls in over $70,000 a year and has great benefits, but he fucking sleeps half the day, and sits on his ass the other half. He says he could produce a lot more, but sees no need to do so. That's a typical lazy union attitude. Because everyone that he works with has that attitude he will be looking for a job soon because that place is going under. There have been many steel manufacturers in this area close over the past 18 months. So what good did those steel tariffs do? The didn't help at all. The simple fact here is the steel making industry has been on the decline for over 30 years, and that has nothing to do with the government or Bush. It has everything to do with lazy fuckers who don't do work which are protected by worthless fucking unions.

My sense of history tends to make my examples seem irrelevant so lets try something a bit more current.

Reduced power of unions=

Tyson Chicken Factory Fire in which there was 25 deaths and 54 people injured. No inspections or union representaion. Some of the doors were locked to keep people from taking breaks.

LINK

Sweat shops

On August 2, 1995, a multi-agency task force led by the California Department of Industrial Relations raided a fenced seven-unit apartment complex in El Monte, California, a small community near Los Angeles. What they found was one of the most horrendous U.S. sweatshops in modern times.

Law enforcement officers arrested eight operators of a Chinese-Thai, family-owned garment sweatshop and freed 72 illegal Thai immigrants. The workers, most of them women, had been held in virtual slavery behind fences tipped with razor wire and forced to sew garments in conditions significantly worse than those found in most sweatshops.

LINK


No overtime, breaks and having to work off the clock...


Wal-Mart sued for labor abuses
BY JULIE FORSTER
Pioneer Press

Debbie Simonson was asked to straighten up her area of the Wal-Mart store in Brooklyn Park at the beginning and end of her shifts when she worked there in 2000 and 2001. She followed her supervisor's requests to work "off the clock," passing out promotional items to customers, assembling candy bags and clearing carts from the parking lot.

Most often, she didn't get meal or rest breaks, and after she was promoted to supervise cashiers, the store was so understaffed that there was never anyone to relieve them for breaks.

She complained to higher-ups but nothing changed. "They didn't care," she said. "It wasn't a priority."

Now Simonson is fighting back by suing her former employer, the nation's largest retailer. On Friday, she and three other women will ask a Dakota County District Court to give them class-action status on behalf of 63,000 current and former workers in Minnesota. Their lawyers estimate that Wal-Mart workers across the state lost tens of millions of dollars in wages and 500,000 hours of breaks per year since 1998.

Link

And as an example of the measures an American Steel company will take to stop a union lets visit Columbia...

ILRF and the United Steelworkers of America filed a suit against the Drummond Company, an Alabama-based mining corporation with facilities in La Loma, Colombia, on behalf of the families of slain workers and their labor union. The suit, filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on March 14, 2002, charges the company with hiring paramilitary gunmen to torture, kidnap and murder union leaders.

LINK

All examples of people who allow themselves to be taken advantage of. I could care less.

Unlike China, something can be done about that stuff, right?

Do you think that unions don't participate in illegal activities? You're crazy if you don't think so.

I'll edit in a personal experience. My sister is a manager at a company. When she worked in Chicago and the new place was being built a union was protesting because her company is non-union. Union protesters broke into the place when people weren't there and destroyed shit all the time, which pushed back their grand opening on more than one occasion. After the place was open the manager above my sister was beat up. He was beat so badly, by union members, that he was in a hospital for weeks! But I guess it's OK for unions to do that, huh? I guess it's perfectly legal for unions to do whatever the fuck they want... That sounds like something that some fucking commies would do! My sister was smart and moved out of there shortly after that.

I am opposed to the existence of things that have outlived their usefulness, unions being one of them.
Rather than argue the point, I'll just say that I've taught in both non-union universtity settings and unionized high school settings. In my personal opinion, the teachers' union was a lame and anti-educational institution. It's sole purpose was to extort funds from the entire proces toward the end of feathering its members nests - this ensured its strength and continued existence. It looked (from within) to be a corrupting influence with no justification other than wielding political muscle for a group that already had the entire population by the balls.

sixate, you said yourself that you don't want to find a job right now, and that is your basis for not quitting. You haven't mentioned it, so I'm assuming you work a 40 hour work week, plus overtime pay; you work in a safe workplace; you can take breaks during the workday. Thank, if not your union, then unions in general for making that possible.

On a personal note, I would sympathize more with your position if you hadn't shown a lack of pity for those without the protection that you have.

You know nothing about my personal situation or my protection other than what I've told you.... My job is not secure, that's why I went to midnights and work a part time non-union job during the day, which I like 1000x more than my regular job. If I chose to work a 40 hour week at the part time job I would absolutely make more money than I do at my union job, but I have the freedom to work that job whenever I want....... The only thing that I have at my union job that I don't get at the non-union is insurance, but that's not as good as is sounds. My insurance is about the only thing that keeps me there, but the company went against my contract, changed insurance coverage to something that fucking sucks dick, and guess what my union did about it? Nothing! I even tried to get a lawyer on my own to get something done, but because I'm in a union a lawyer won't touch it. They all said that I need to go to my union and have them take care of it. If I had a contract, without a union, I could get lawyer, and get it changed. We could also walk out and fight to get our insurance back, but the worthless union workers are all stupid fucking potheads who are broke as fuck and their lives would be wrecked if they missed one day of pay. I have no need to go into further detail of my personal life because quite honestly it's not anyone's business.

BTW, I have breaks at my other part time job, and I get treated a million times better, and the quality of people I work with is nothing like all the lazy drunken pothead losers that I'm surrounded with at my union job.... When I get certain things taken care of I'll quit both jobs and move my ass away from here. Until then, I'm in the position I'm in because of stupid choices that I've made, and I'll never blame anyone other than myself for the position I'm in. It's not the union's fault and it certainly isn't the governments fault. That blame is on my shoulders, but I learned my lesson, and I won't make the same mistakes twice. No pain no gain.

sizate,
So why don't you do something about your union? I'm sure its much eaiser to change things in a union then it is to argue with people who lock you in a room with barbed wire everywhere like those people in California. If you're unhappy with your union, do what they did. Get other people who agree with you and protest, write letters, or some other type action.

Or MAYBE, just be allowed to work without having a union?

I forgot to post my actual reaction to the orginal post after reading the rest of the thread.

Yes, you should be able to work without having a union, but you shouldn't get the same benifits as the union workers. If you don't join the union, you have to work out benifits with the company by yourself.

Sixate has a non-union job. Since he chooses to work at a second, unionized job, I'm not sure what the beef with the union is.

From the limited informatin he provided, it appears as though his complaint is more with lazy people than unions wrecking a particular industry. In fact, the one reason he cites as desiring the union job, health insurance (while simultaneously complaining that the coverage isn't worth anything), is the issue most unions are currently activating their leverage.

This doesn't present a very compelling illustration of the uselessness of organized labor. Rather, the opposite seems to be the case. The non-unionized job Sixate works at doesn't provide health care coverage. Sixate values health care coverage. He chooses to work in a less desirable environment in order to get some sort of coverage. Instead of working with organized labor that is currently protesting across the nation, he rails against the power of labor movements. This sounds misplaced to me, but I'm supportive of labor.

But I'll reiterate: His example illustrates false consciousness more than the deleterious effects of unions.

Getting back to the original post I think people unwilling to pay union dues shouldn't receive any of the benefits unions have brought to the workplace: minimum wage, overtime, vacation, weekends, healthcare, medical leave, workplace safety, retirement, etc. These are the kind of things the econ. babblers mean when they are talking about "market inefficiency."

Just want to make one thing clear. My main job is the union job, and I recently started working part time at a non-union job. The only reason I'm working both is because I want to pay off some dumb fucking bills I created and it will get done faster if I work 2 jobs. Once the bills are gone I will quit the union job. I can go into detail and name many times that my union has fucked me over, but I won't bore you with the bullshit because it doesn't matter. Unions are shit, they're even shittier than the lazy fuckbags that I work with.

The non-union job does provide health care to their full-time employees, which is pretty equal to what I have now. I used to have much better insurance, but my union didn't do a thing when my company went against my contract and changed health care providers even though my contract states in black and white who the health care provider is supposed to be and what the coverage is supposed to be. I don't take the insurance at the part time non-union job because I don't need it. I save them money, and they pay me cash under the table. So we're both happy... BTW, that could never happen at a company that had a union.

Tman144, it's not that easy when you're in a union. When you're in a union you have to rely on your union to fight for you. If your union is full of corrupt pricks that don't care about their members then shit doesn't get done. They cover shit up and lie their asses off. That's just the way it is. What sucks about my situation is the people I work with aren't smart enough to get together and get something done.... It takes more than one. There's power in numbers, but when there's no numbers you have no power.

If you mean on a national level, that's impossible. The minimum wage is now law, as is overtime, medical leave, workplace safety, etc. While the union movement impacted these things, they are no longer the driving force of them. Vacations, weekends, healthcare, retirement, etc are company specific practices and the unions have little to no impact on these in the vast majority of the economy.

If you mean on a more micro level as far as union vs non-union workers within a company or industry, I agree completely. I don't believe that non-union workers should benefit from contract concessions won by the union. If you're not paying for their representation you should not benefit from it. Of course, there aren't too many instances where there are both non-union and union workers doing the same jobs within companies. In fact, many unions fight tooth and nail to insure that non-union workers are never allowed into their labor markets since most union workers would lose out if they had to compete openly for these positons.

sixate,
If you did finally quit your non-union job and began working full-time at this new job you would have health care and whatnot, right? But what if this new company decided that they weren't making enough money and took away all those benifits. You would want to try and get those benifits back, and the best way to do that would be to form a union. Unions are more of a "war-time" organization so-to speak. You don't recongnize their usefullness now because you haven't really needed them. You may need to get rid of your particular union, but unions in general are a very usefull tool in getting workers rights.

Cute, Locobot. Real cute.

Minimum wage is almost as bad for American workers as unions, but I'll save that for another discussion.

Regarding weekends, you can thank religion for those. And vacation? Are you really trying to say that unions invented vacation? And medical leave? And retirement? Please.

Workplace benefits exist because prosperity allows us certain luxuries. We've come a long way from subsistence living. No longer do we need to toil in the fields from sunrise til sunset every day of the week because we have the technology and science gained throughout generations of innovation and hard work. You see, that's what happens when people have an incentive to do more than just the bare minimum.

Yet the bare minimum is all that unions seem to want their members to do. Mediocrity is rewarded while attempts to excel are discouraged, even punished. This is precisely what sixate finds so frustrating in his union and its exactly what has caused so many bankruptcies and failures within heavily unionized industries.

As has been established here already, unions strive to create an anti-competitive labor environment. It is designed to benefit the union membership but comes at the cost of those who provide the work opportunities, those outside of the union, as well as those within the union who are denied opportunities in order to protect the very worst.

Most of the participants in this discussion agree that unions incur great economic costs to their industries and the nation, but some will argue that unions create social benefits that far outweigh their economic costs. Their arguments rely upon the premise that certain social advancements would have never occurred without unions and that the laws of this nation are insufficient to protect the rights of workers- a hard premise to substantiate. Harder still is the task of quantifying the costs, in terms of jobs lost, innovation and productivity stifled, etc. For example, without the economic costs of unionized labor and artificial price floors, how much more wealth, prosperity, and tax revenue would we have in order to improve the lives and security of American workers? You see, there are just to many "what ifs."

I will submit that social benefits and general improvement in the standards of living for all Americans will occur faster and to a greater degree in the absence of unions in this country. And I would love to challenge anyone here to try to prove me wrong.

Sunday OR Saturday was the "weekend" for most people before the unionization of labor.

One day off for church, then everyone goes back to their 6 days a week 80+ hours of dangerous, hard work.

A real weekend, Vacations and medical leave and Retirement as well as the 40 hour work week, overtime rules and OSHA are a product of the lobbying of labor unions.

Stupid, propagandish statement. I don't think you know clue one about what a union is or does. You seem to have been fed your talking points. Have you any real world experience with a union?
Or perhaps, were you burnt by one?

[quote]As has been established here already, unions strive to create an anti-competitive labor environment. It is designed to benefit the union membership but comes at the cost of those who provide the work opportunities, those outside of the union, as well as those within the union who are denied opportunities in order to protect the very worst. [quote]
That's bluster as you have established no such thing. There is always competition. The company always has the right to fire their workers and hire new ones. All the workers are doing is massing together to maximize their barganing power. That is well within any mans rights. Why give one side of a company all the power to do what they wish? Why would you wish to deny the true backbone of an industry the right to help guide the company in the direction they want to see it go?

I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove me wrong as there is no enclosed bubble where any of your economic theories has been or could ever be tested out.

But...
If left the way you want it, businesses do what is economical for their business. To maximize their profits. They will cut benefits and amenities as low as they possibly can while still retaining their employees and not hurting their productivity.

With a union workers demand a portion of the profits they help the company earn, and demand as good of working conditions as possibly from their employer. The give and take between labor and employer yields an arangement where, usually they meet somewhere in the middle ensuring an equitable deal for all.

Do you honestly believe that without labor unions we wouldn't have trwo-day weekends? Unions came up with the idea of Labor Day, and Grover Cleveland made it happen. The notion of the weekend, however, has its roots in Judeo-Christian beliefs, declaring a "day of rest." As world economies grew more productive, largely through technological advances realized during the industrial revolution, the quality of life improved for just about everyone, and less hours were required to produce more goods. As a result, people were able to reduce the time they spent working. The two-day weekend was born!

So, thank productivity for your weekends. It could well be that in a few years, through further gains in productivity, the concept of a weekend evolves into a three-day time-frame. That is, unless unions continue to actively reduce productivity...

40-hr weeks and o/t are pointless. If anything, they hurt us. Take a look at France and its 30-hour work week - what a mess they've got. Employers packing it up and leaving every day, unemployment soaring, tax receipts way down, and 12,000 dead during a heat wave because nurses weren't allowed to work.

Irrelevant.

Settle down, Superbelt. Seriously, catch your breath, read the forum rules, and think beofre you post. OK? Keep it civil or I WILL be forced to ignore you.

[Regarding my statements about unions creating anti-competitive labor markets]Yes I have. Re-read my posts.

Not without threat of a lawsuit or another strike.

Yeah, they're forming a mob. They try to create monopolies on labor, and use their monopolistic power to exploit businesses. Aptly labeled parasites, extortion is the name of the game for unions.

Extortion is no man's "right."

You don't. A work agreement is a two-sided agreement. Don't like your job? Leave.

Let the workers do their jobs and the managers do theirs. Each is an expert in his respective area. Do you tell your dentist how to fix your toothache? Didn't think so.

Note the "retaining employees" clause in your statement. Again, freedom of choice empowers the individual much more than any mob ever could. Once again, free markets are the great equalizer, and the profit motive creates the incentives.

Now answer this question - what can a union do that an individual or a class-action lawsuit can't? Then tell me whether or not the answer to that question can be deemed a fair practice.

Superbelt,
Your graph quantifies the economic damage union mobs inflict upon non-union employees. Thanks for providing that.

Most of europe is just like France. 3 week vacations are guaranteed by the government.
If all this is so horrible, why does the Euro continue to rise and is overtaking the Dollar as the worlds security currency?

Sorry if you don't like my comments, but I believe your comments are just a smear against union labor. "bare minimum" "excel is discouraged, punished" Base lies.

Anything else I would want to reply to is just repeating myself, so I will leave it at that.

My graph quantifies the equitable treatment of employees, not extortion. The companies have it, why should the employees not try to get it.
I would sure feel sorry for the poor schlub working the same job making 7 dollars an hour less on average than a union employee who is getting his fair share.

Because we have a large trade deficit. And why do we have a large trade deficit? Because our economy is so much better than their socialist/labor/welfare economies that we can afford to buy all the frickin' cheap, stanky camembert and boujolais nouveau we can stand to consume.

Seriously, you should look into taking an economics course.

Believe what you want to believe, pal, but I'll let my economic analysis and reason-based arguments stand on their own merit.

Um, actually it shows unequitable treatment. See how one bar is bigger than the other? Yeah. That means they're not equal. Not equitable. And what do the folks in the one bar do to deserve more than those in the other? Hmm?

You have money, why should I not try to get yours? The ends do not justify the means, Superbelt.

Me too. I feel sorry for him because the union used extortion to take money that should otherwise have gone to him.

As a matter of fact, that statement you find so stupid is is exactly what the problem is. I have 8 years experience of being in a union so I can speak from experience. And your statement asking if he was burnt ny a union is another part of the problem. Good hard workers do get burned by unions. Tell me why someone who doesn't do a quarter of the work that I do should get paid the same as me when they're worthless. Then these worthless losers tell me yo slow down because I make them look bad... WTF! I have no part in making anyone look bad. Lazy pieces of shit do that on their own.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I am full of questions and a lack of answers, where this thread has headed is a bit confounding to me. I'd like to see what some of you think.


I don't know if you have read <u>Who Governs?</u> by Robert Dahl, John Gaventa's <u>Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley</u>, <u>Power: A Radical View</u> by Steven Lukes, "The Two Faces of Power" by Bachrach and Baratz, and other writings providing models of power, influence and control. Looking at these models, particularly Gaventa's, seems to provide some insight into the discussion going on here.

What I am reminded of here in this thread is the difficulty of managing power and how the people directly affected by the power structure tend of have real difficulties grasping the power that they should have access to. I've never been a part of a union, so my only access to unions comes from accounts of others and the news. What is striking is how it sounds like many union workers here feel as though their union provides them no real power, and that people not in unions resent unions for creating monopolies on labor. I am still a little confused about how people are so quick to say "if you don't like your job, then leave it", when the facticity of most people's lives makes that option incredibly difficult. There are less jobs than there are people, this has been institutionalized by our government.

Gaventa notes that in some circumstances when it is reasonable or expected for a group to resist and attempt to create change that the group does not. Reasons for this include lack of education or education being provided with a bias by the empowered class, a history of being defeated repeatedly, symbolic significance of landmarks and other items used daily that support the power structure, and several others. The question that is burning in my mind now is - if unions are so bad and seemingly worthless to so many union workers, <i>why haven't they don't anything to change it?</i> If so many are dissatisfied with unions within and without, why isn't anything being done? Or, is there actually plenty being done, and this discussion is actually signifying some other problems with the American system or culture? In any event it seems there are serious perceived problems, and perceived problems deserve attention... where is the disconnect?

Certainly in a union you have numbers, and if there is power in numbers, what is preventing this power from actualization? And, in the rest of the labor force, there are numbers as well, if there is such strong anti-union sentiments, why hasn't the rest of the labor force done something about it? Is everyone so powerless and angry, that all we can do is complain about the system and no one can do anything about it?

My BS meter just went off the chart there. The industrial revolution didn't improve the quality of life for everyone, only the rich had their quality of life improved. Meanwhile the rest of the population was forced to work long hours in factories for little pay and live in crowded tenaments. You think that unions were formed because all of the workers were living in plush apartments thinking of ways to steal their employers money? No, unions were formed because people wanted to be payed enough so that their kids could eat and go to school.

Increased productivity does mean a better quality of life on behalf of the working class. When companies can produce more per worker, know what they do? They stop hiring workers. They don't pass the savings on down the line, they pocket it and pay the workers enough so that they don't die.

Maybe you should get your little BS meter recalibrated.

To suggest that the technological and scientific advances that came about during the industrial revolution did not improve the quality of life for the average worker is to ignore the economic realities of the time.

Start with the invention of the steam engine, and the incredible mobility it gave to everyone once mass transit was introduced. Then consider Henry Ford's assembly line, which resulted in the manufacture of cars, ambulances, and fire engines that worked better than anything anyone had ever seen, and were also vastly more affordable.

I could go on and on, but why bother? Countless volumes have already been written on the subject, and it's pretty apparent how technological and scientific progress improves the standards of living for everyone.

Forced, huh? Forced labor is slavery, pal. We didn't have that during the industrial revolution and we don't have it now either. And please try not to confuse the industrial revolution with the great depression, OK?

I'll be blunt. Unions were formed because they created a means by which workers were able to get more than they deserved.

False. Companies in a competitive free market environment do not seek stasis, they seek growth. I showed in a previous post what comes about as a result of increased productivity. Since you ignored it then, I'll present it for you once again:

Productivity and efficiency gains translate into increased profitability, and/or lower prices for consumers
Increased profitability creates greater growth opportunities, while lower prices creates greater consumer buying power
Increased consumer buying power increases demand for products and service
Growth opportunities and increased demand for products and services lead to a greater demand for labor
Greater demand for labor leads to increased hiring and higher wages
Higher wages leads to higher disposable income levels and increased personal spending
Increased personal spending results in more economic growth opportunities
Growth opportunities lead to greater demand for labor
Greater demand for labor lead to increased hiring and higher wages

And so on...

If you want to see the big picture you will need to think well beyond the first factor in this vast economic equation.

Unions can be a good thing or a bad thing much like everything else in this world. I think they ususally have good intentions, but sometimes fallprey to the corruption of money - much like big business and government.

I don't think you should have to join a union to get a job, but if the union is there you shouldn't expect the same benefits as the union workers.

First, I'd like to thank you for your insight.

Now, I'll try to answer your questions.
Yes, there is power in numbers. Now here's why we can't take advantage of that where I work. To start, you need to have enough intelligent individuals who know their rights who can lead the group. We don't have that where I work. About 95% of the time I'm the only one who questions anything that the union does. My reps never give me straight answers. All they say is: That's union business, not yours. Well, I'm part of the union you fucking idiot. I pay my dues. It is my fucking business. Now, lets say I can get my union to do something. My local reps can only do so much. Then the it's up to the international to follow through and finish the job, which never gets done. All they care about is getting my fucking money each month. I could do more and run for a local union spot, which people asked me to do last year, but what it comes down to is I work with idiots who aren't worth me wasting my time. A union is only as strong as it's members. So if 95% of it's members are weak dumb worthless potheads who only care about getting high then your union is only as strong as those morons, and it doesn't matter how strong one guy is. That's why it's called a union. It takes more than one to get shit done. I think it's obvious to say the union isn't strong at all in a situation like that. On a side not, there are about 20 people that i work with who never even finished high school. Two guys can't even read, and I can't even begin to count how many guys I work with don't even have a checkings or savings account. I'm not making that shit up. You couldn't possibly believe how dumb the son of a bitches are.

There are strong anti-union sentiments where I work, but here's what it comes down to. If there wasn't a union all the dudes that get high at work, show up drunk, and miss a ton of work wouldn't have jobs. Where else can you go and sleep half your day and get a pretty good check every week, and have better insurance than many people? The union protects lazy people like this, and there isn't a person out there who can deny that. If someone can deny that fact it's only because they have no clue and have never worked for a union or they're one of the lazy fucks themselves. So when people weigh the option of getting rid of the union they are smart enough to realize they won't have a job if the union was ever voted out, and that's why the union where I work will never get the boot. The fucking losers I work with couldn't find other jobs if their lives depended on it. They probably couldn't hold a job flipping burgers at McDonald's. Here's a good example of how dumb and broke people are that I work with. The company went against our contract and changed insurance. There was about a 2 week period where we had no insurance at all. By rights we coulda, and quite honestly shoulda walked out. I was ready to. Here's the problem. People are broke as fuck! This one dude needed to get a prescription filled. It was gonna cost him $56 because we didn't have insurance at the time. He didn't have the money. This guy has been working a full time job where he makes pretty good money for 16 years! He told a union rep that he only had $21 and some change left over from his last check, and that's all the money he had in his name. I was standing there when he said this... The best part is the fucking loser started to cry! HAHA! I laughed right in his face and said: I bet you'll still find a way to buy your drugs this week, huh? The sad part is more than half the idiots I work with are in the same situation. They can't afford to walk out and fight, and it's their own fault that they're broke as hell. So the company takes advantage of the situation, and quite honestly I don't blame them because I;d probably do the same thing.

Now that we do have insurance. That moron who needed $56 would've only had to pay $5 under our old insurance. Now it'll cost him at least $20, and possibly $40 depending on if that medication is on a formulary list, which there are a lot of drugs on that list. That's a huge increase in what we have to pay, and my union has done nothing. There are other little things, but that's the biggest change. The sad thing is i don't need any prescriptions and I almost never get sick because I take care of myself. I almost never use the insurance and I'm pissed more than the people who do use it.

There wouldn't be unions if there weren't assholes in charge.
Unfortunately, unions suck because there are assholes in charge.

It's a catch-22, and the low man is getting screwed either way because of the selfishness at the top.

Only way you going to get away from this,
is to learn something others want, but can't do & few others can.
Once you have this, they have to deal on your terms.

This is why capitalism works, because it's the most efficient economy model that "takes advantage" of the selfish agendas of others.
If you look upon the good will of others, most of the time you'll be disappointed.

I had a feeling that education was a big part of this (thus my citation of Gaventa). Do you think that they intentionally hire people that have less education than others to keep the power structure intact?

I have my theories about how those in charge in government have attempted to defund education to create a larger class of people who don't participate politically and create a great pool of cheap labor for the corporations. It seems evident to me that some of those examples you gave could have been mitigated with education (i.e. personal finance courses). Do any of you think there is a connection here? Additionally, the drug dependency/abuse scenario seems to depict a situation where many people don't like their lives and wish to escape it. It sounds as though there are just a lot of lost people out there; I would imagine that any education efforts made now to remedy this would be a long time in coming to show any significant changes.

A rather intersting opinion on education. Not sure that I agree, but I certainly understand your point.

I'm not exactly sure if companies hire dumb people on purpose. I mean yeah, they can take advantage of dumbasses, but wouldn't it make sense to hire smart motivated individuals who you won't have to baby sit. Plus, if you get highly motivated workers you won't need as many employees. I just think that most of the population is stupid. I'm not sure where the fault lies. Isn't it our own responsibility to get educated? All the tools to learn are out there. We just need to use them..... How do you teach motivation?