- ‹ previous
- 1145 of 2040
- next ›
Unions
UNIONS....Ezra Klein on unions:
The last great leap forward for unions was during World War II, and the last great expansion of the American middle class followed in its aftermath.In contrast, the most recent expansions — which have largely occurred in the absence of unions — have benefited America's rich.
Yep. And if there's one thing you definitely can't blame our current economic crisis on, it's spiraling middle class wages. In fact, there's a pretty good case to be made that stronger middle class wage growth would have reduced the motivation to borrow so heavily, which is a big contributing factor to the depth of the recesson we're facing now. (It also might have kept a little more money out of the hands of idiot Wall Street bankers, which would have been no bad thing either.)
Unions are hardly a panacea for middle class wage growth, but they can help. I'm pretty open to the idea that Mickey Kaus has been writing about lately, namely that mushrooming work rules are a specific problem for American-style unionization, and I'd be happy to see good-faith efforts to address reform in that area. Unfortunately, good faith is in very short supply in the anti-union camp. Conservatives flatly oppose anything that gives labor any additional bargaining power, full stop, and that doesn't leave much room for compromise. So unions it is. Especially in the service sector, they're pretty much the only idea on the table for seriously addressing low-end wage growth, and that means I'm for 'em.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Good for you, Kevin, but I sure wish you'd stop calling the working class the middle class. What was in that conservative Kool-Aid you guys all drank after WWII? If you mean MIDDLE INCOME, you're still off base ? because average isn't the same as typical. What does a worker have to be to not be middle class? Unemployed? Lose his job? What are you trying to save us from by calling us middle class? Maybe you're trying to spare our feelings, is that it?
I'm a worker, goddamnit, not a bourgeois! Don't be calling me middle class!
So, Mr Drum, to which union do you belong?
What mushrooming work rules? I've worked with unions for 25 years and I can think of very few disputes over work rules during that time. Most of those few have been safety related -- hardly a trivial concern.
Kaus doesn't know shit about labor unions -- or pretty much anything else for that matter. I would not use him as a source for anything related to this topic -- he is an unabashed union hater.
I think the amount of union rules depends entirely on the union/management interactions. If a union has a good working relationship with the management the number of rules tends to be small, if on the other hand they're hostile to each other the number of rules explodes in order to basically screw the other and stop your side from being screwed at the same time. Since most of the union/management relations in the US tend to fall into latter, hostile category the contracts are complex, detailed, and long.
As it's been said before, you don't get the union you want, you get the union you deserve.
Republicans actually love collective bargaining in the situation where the stockholders' collective is represented by a single CEO.
It's only when labor organizes that it becomes an issue.
Also, as a consultant, my employer insists on negotiating hourly rates with the client.
Somehow they frown on the client negotiating terms with me directly.
So apparently collective bargaining for labor is only good when there's a corporate middleman getting his cut.
One of the big problems has been transforming unions so that they represent more white collar workers. One effective corporate strategy has been to reclassify workers as managers. That way they get no overtime nor representation. Pure exploitation.
When I was at Citibank, the chumps who made copies and stapled things together were called asst. VPs. Believe me, they would never become real managers.
The public sector and journalism are really the only sectors where white collar workers are represented that I know of.
Until the problem of organizing white collar workers is addressed, the rich will continue to get a growing share of national wealth. I really don't have much hope that anything will change.
In my experience as a union steward, rather than impeding management, consultation with the unions on policy changes gives management valuable input from the people who actually do the work.
And, workers are more likely to go along with new procedures when they know that their union has been involved to protect their interest. Almost all the union members I've known have been quite aware that the their continued employment is dependent on the success of the company they work for.
In manufacturing, union workers are usually more productive than non-union workers in the same industry.
Good for you, Kevin, but I sure wish you'd stop calling the working class the middle class. What was in that conservative Kool-Aid you guys all drank after WWII? If you mean MIDDLE INCOME, you're still off base because average isn't the same as typical. What does a worker have to be to not be middle class? Unemployed? Lose his job? What are you trying to save us from by calling us middle class? Maybe you're trying to spare our feelings, is that it?
I'm a worker, goddamnit, not a bourgeois! Don't be calling me middle class!
Unions only work when they can blackmail companies by stopping production, as in manufacturing, or where wages are not a concern, as for government workers.
As many workers, such as tech workers and engineers, have discovered, we face global competition from cheap immigrants and offshoring. American workers have in general already lost pensions and medical benefits and should be prepared for great cuts in wages in the future, or lose their jobs altogether if they are unable to face reality (such as the auto workers). Unions are a bit of an anachronism.
"The last great leap forward for unions was during World War II, and the last great expansion of the American middle class followed in its aftermath."
I got a good chuckle over this line. Yes, unions prospered when a good portion of the industrialized world outside the US stood in ruins after the world's most devastating war. All we have to do is nuke Europe, China, and select Asian countries to replicate the same environment.
As it stands, the world is a much more competitive place than the late 1940's and 1950's, a reason why the unions have been hollowing out ever since.
For the record, Kaus has a response to Drum's assertions which can be viewed at kausfiles.com.
Unions-A way for labor to organize against abuses in the workplace, poor working conditions and their share of the pie. Good Unions make for good Management-Fact! Good Unions take a lot of personnel problems off the Management by having contracts and agreements that work both ways. If Unions are bad-Explain the abuses going on now with CEOS and Corporate Heads getting millions for failing to do their job. The breakup of the Unions started under Reagen and the Republicans definitely don't want to see them get strong again-even if that means illegal immigrant labor and no border patrols. If drugs come into the Country to, that's okay, they all live in areas that the addicts can't afford!
Unity is strength, and when talking about unions the whole ecological green organic balance must be brokught into question by the working class for there resides the way of life and the need to improve living and working conditions. Gone are the days when only monied conditions were the only conditions. If you can't breathe the air, and drink the water, and the lands are being polluted, as present practice of coal, gas, oil, and atomic energy results, then life shortens for all including plants and animals. It is time to re-tool to wind, tidal, and solar power to bring the sweet smelling air back. Unite there and win for OBU-- a one big union.
I'm sure my thoughts on the matter are horribly unrefined and consequently unrealistic, but could we not eliminate the need for unions, and the worker/management dichotomy, with a system of mandated employee ownership? Small outfits (for whom I assume unions are not currently an issue) would be exempt, but especially publicly traded corporations should have this rule (personally, I would like to see publicly traded corporations of unlimited duration and purpose eliminated, but that's me).
Historically speaking managements get the unions they deserve.
"If Unions are bad-Explain the abuses going on now with CEOS and Corporate Heads getting millions for failing to do their job. "
Non-sequitur. Unions could be good or bad regardless of undeserved CEO pay and bonuses.
"...Republicans definitely don't want to see them get strong again-even if that means illegal immigrant labor and no border patrols."
Right, because we all know that it's the Democrats who want to crack down on illegal immigration, create tougher border security, and send all the current illegal immigrants back to their homeland.
WRONG on so many levels.
First of all, individual wage growth has been 9% in real after tax dollars for the bottom quintile over the last 50 years, not changing that much regardless of who has been in office. Mr. Drum confuses, as do Democrats generally and many Republicans (amazingly) wage levels with actual wages. Wage levels can remain exactly the same and wage growth can still be excellent. Individuals during their work lives rise THROUGH (excuse the capitals) those wage levels. The last statistics I saw have 80% of people entering the workforce at the bottom quintile rising to the 2nd highest income quintile after 20 years. People get promoted and get raises, but the wage levels remain relatively constant (they can even go down and still there is wage growth).
In fact, unions inhibit employment and exclude people from the workforce. Civil service unions destroy public services, especially the schools along the way. In truth the zeal for unionization is the eagerness to attain political power through votes and and reliable campaign funds (coerced from union workers salaries).
The card check is the most frightening attempt to legitimize thuggery since the legislatively constructed lesser penalties for union-based violence against temporary workers and firms employing them. It's a disgrace. Whatever "reasons" for it can be addressed directly without worker coercion. Further many workers would prefer promotions and raises based on merit rather than seniority and a system where their colleagues who are hacks and jerks are fired rather than kept (fired and replaced by the dedicated workers themselves).
Unions are anti-worker as is the Democratic Party ... in actuality despite rhetoric.
TOH
Corporate thuggery:
---
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) will settle an employee class-action lawsuit for $54 million over allegations of off-the-clock work and slicing break time for employees. Over 100,000 current and former hourly Wal-Mart employees are included in the suit, which covers a 10-year period from September 1998 to November 2008.
---
link
Workforce exclusion in the worker's paradise:
---
RIM Sues Motorola Over Hiring of Laid-Off Workers
Research in Motion is suing Motorola, claiming it's preventing the Canadian phone maker from hiring workers the U.S. company is letting go, reports Bloomberg.
RIM claims a pact the two companies made earlier this year to not hire the other company's employees as part of negotiations of a confidential matter expired in August or is not enforceable, or both, according to the Chicago Tribune. Motorola sued RIM, maker of the BlackBerry, three months ago, asking the judge to prevent its company from using any confidential information or from hiring its workers.
Motorola has laid off 10,000 workers since 2007 and recently announced more cuts.
---
link
"Historically speaking managements get the unions they deserve."
Okay. So why should we give billions of our dollars to the managers of the auto companies? Presumably if they go under, their (remaining) market share will be taken by better-managed companies.