NationStates Jolt Archive

So now that I am actually in the sweat and grind of the mainstream workforce, I have been looking at understanding why companies (like the one I work for as well as others) do what they do and why they treat people the way they treat them. I have been thinking a lot lately about Unions and Unionization. The current company I am with does not allow unions, whereas where I was last they did.

I want to start this thread to get a better understanding of what you guys think is good and bad about Unions. I know that tensions may rise if this is a passionate subject for some, but I am asking every poster to post both what they feel is good and bad about Unions, that way we can try to see both sides of the issue more clearly.

Also don't want this thread to disintegrate into a capitalism vs. socialism debate because although they may be very relevant (and by all means bring them into the discussion) I just don't want the thread to lose it's focus.

Personally, I feel that unions are for the best as they can help create checks and restraints on management, as long as they too have certain restraints and checks against them to create a balance.

Unions are nice to have on your side if your management decides to take the company pension fund on a tour of emerging markets and special financial instruments.

Unions are nice to have on your side if your management decides to take the company pension fund on a tour of emerging markets and special financial instruments.

But doesn't the risk make the reward at the end all the sweeter :D

It's difficult to say what is good and bad about unions because not all unions have the same methods, goals, and organizing tactics. With that said, I'd say the best union is the IWW: www.iww.org

It's also the first link in my sig.

It depends on the Union, and it depends on the business being unionized. A lot of people don't seem to realize that Unions are often a business unto themselves. The company I used to work for, went through 5 years of negotiations and legal proceedings and was finally unionized after I had left. None of the people who currently work there, actually signed the petition to bring the union in. Everyone received a raise commensurate with the amount of union dues they now have to pay. And no complaints to the union seem to have any effect on bringing about change. The company now has to pay out more money, so that this particular union can bring in more revenue. That seems to be the only difference so far.

That's not to say, that in some cases, collective bargaining is not only warranted, but necessary.

But doesn't the risk make the reward at the end all the sweeter :D
Not if you are rewarded with a WTF notice, no.

"What?! I'm going to die in poverty because you miscalculated the yield on Syrian date futures?!"

Some unions are good and some unions are bad. The UAW is a perfect example of a bad union; they're willing to drive companies in to bankruptcy to get pay and benefits that they don't deserve regardless of how many workers might be fired to pay for it

Others like the IBEW are great unions who protect their workers while still keeping the benefits they demand reasonable, and they are willing to embrace new technology in order to keep their companies growing and their workers employed (something that the UAW resisted in American automakers in order to preserve make-work jobs). It's a mixed bag; there are many honest unions whose goals are meant to genuinely advance the conditions and wages of their workers and there are corrupt ones who greedily hold companies to ransom for benefits they don't deserve.

Some unions are good and some unions are bad. The UAW is a perfect example of a bad union; they're willing to drive companies in to bankruptcy to get pay and benefits that they don't deserve regardless of how many workers might be fired to pay for it

Others like the IBEW are great unions who protect their workers while still keeping the benefits they demand reasonable, and they are willing to embrace new technology in order to keep their companies growing and their workers employed (something that the UAW resisted in American automakers in order to preserve make-work jobs). It's a mixed bag; there are many honest unions whose goals are meant to genuinely advance the conditions and wages of their workers and there are corrupt ones who greedily hold companies to ransom for benefits they don't deserve.

I wouldn't say that the UAW is greedy, unless greedy is ensuring that workers have health coverage, pension when they retire, and a solid middle-class income. Rather, the problem is that the American health-care system: unlike every other industrialized nation, the U.S. privately finances their healthcare. That means that GM and Ford are saddled with a huge and growing bill that is effectively subsidized out of existence for Saab, Mercedes, and Toyota. But that's neither here nor there.

The obvious good benefit of unions is that their existence ensures the possibility of a middle-class lifestyle, even for those who aren't union. One of the major reasons why, for instance, Las Vegas has until very recently been a place where anyone could pick up a middle-class job on short notice was the presence of a strong Culinary Union on the Strip: the competition for jobs with the CU effectively raised wages all across the city. Additionally, unions can be a very effective means of preventing work stoppages and job losses that might otherwise occur: unions are a major reason why (I believe it's) SafeCo is more profitable per square foot than Wal-Mart, and a big part of that is job retention and high worker morale. The downside, of course, is that the unions are corruptable like any other entrenched bureaucratic interest.

I wouldn't say that the UAW is greedy, unless greedy is ensuring that workers have health coverage, pension when they retire, and a solid middle-class income. Rather, the problem is that the American health-care system: unlike every other industrialized nation, the U.S. privately finances their healthcare. That means that GM and Ford are saddled with a huge and growing bill that is effectively subsidized out of existence for Saab, Mercedes, and Toyota. But that's neither here nor there.

A Delphi production worker gets the equivalent of $100,000 dollars in wages and benefits from the company; that's simply not affordable or justifiable for the education and the value of the work they put in.

The only reason they get that much is because the UAW would strike if they didn't and put that company along with its former parent GM in to bankruptcy; in the past, the UAW also blocked productivity investments in order to preserve its make-work positions and constantly supported protectionist legislation to force other Americans to buy their products or be penalized. The UAW refuses to compromise to allow the company to get out of bankruptcy and they refuse to cut back benefits to levels competitive with other automakers costing GM a fortune and making it increasingly uncompetitive. They're willing to keep Delphi in bankruptcy or even go on strike which would put GM under as well; the cost of keeping their benefits is over 30,000 employees' jobs.

The obvious good benefit of unions is that their existence ensures the possibility of a middle-class lifestyle, even for those who aren't union. One of the major reasons why, for instance, Las Vegas has until very recently been a place where anyone could pick up a middle-class job on short notice was the presence of a strong Culinary Union on the Strip: the competition for jobs with the CU effectively raised wages all across the city. Additionally, unions can be a very effective means of preventing work stoppages and job losses that might otherwise occur: unions are a major reason why (I believe it's) SafeCo is more profitable per square foot than Wal-Mart, and a big part of that is job retention and high worker morale. The downside, of course, is that the unions are corruptable like any other entrenched bureaucratic interest.

I generally believe in unions; the only one I have a problem with is the UAW so I agree with this argument.

Unions are nice to have on your side if your management decides to take the company pension fund on a tour of emerging markets and special financial instruments.

Unless you happen to be a UAW worker who works for GM, and the union is going hand in hand with management stupidity, and the voting rules in the union effectively silence the rank and file.

So long as they don't get protection from the state, I think that unions don't really do anything bad. Freedom of contract and freedom of association are essential in a free-market economy, and if a business can get along with a union because they think it is beneficial for them to do so, well, then that's fine. The problem I think is when the unions gain monopoly through the government- i.e., no right to work (have to join a union), everyone has to pay union dues, etc. Then it causes companies, industries, even the entire economy to go south, because there is no longer mutual benefit.

Unions in the US are also famous for participating in racketeering scandals with organized crime.

Just because it says "Union" in its name, doesn't mean it's some ideal organization that will always do the right thing.

Just because it says "Union" in its name, doesn't mean it's some ideal organization that will always do the right thing.
Agreed, the "Soviet" variety is a testament to that..

Unions are nice to have on your side if your management decides to take the company pension fund on a tour of emerging markets and special financial instruments.
No guarantees that a union will be able to make a bit of difference. The pilots at Delta are no longer covered by the traditional pension. Neither are members of UAW. There are a lot of unions that realized losing a pension was a better alternative to losing a job after the company that they bankrupted closed the doors.

So now that I am actually in the sweat and grind of the mainstream workforce, I have been looking at understanding why companies (like the one I work for as well as others) do what they do and why they treat people the way they treat them. I have been thinking a lot lately about Unions and Unionization. The current company I am with does not allow unions, whereas where I was last they did.

I want to start this thread to get a better understanding of what you guys think is good and bad about Unions. I know that tensions may rise if this is a passionate subject for some, but I am asking every poster to post both what they feel is good and bad about Unions, that way we can try to see both sides of the issue more clearly.

Also don't want this thread to disintegrate into a capitalism vs. socialism debate because although they may be very relevant (and by all means bring them into the discussion) I just don't want the thread to lose it's focus.

Personally, I feel that unions are for the best as they can help create checks and restraints on management, as long as they too have certain restraints and checks against them to create a balance.
Unions are a needed force in order to make sure that employees are represented. Representation is necessary to maintain decent wages and proper working conditions.

However, unions do tend to take the idea of a good working enviornment too far, from what I understand. They appear to demand higher wages and more benefits too often, frequently holding their employers responsible for poor economic conditions and thus, for frozen wages, increased hours, and other effects of such downturns.

There is absolutely nothing bad about the idea of unionization, in itself. There is absolutely nothing good about unionization, in itself.

Unions can be extremely good as a method for labor negotiations; collective bargaining can give workers the leverage they need to maximize their value.

Unions can also be bad, as they can result in confrontation within the labor force, and disenfranchise non-unionized members of the workforce.

In the end, I fully support unions, but think that they should be closely monitored for harrassment or violence against non-unionized workers.