NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democrats are paying back debts to the union machinery by making it much easier to establish a union workplace. How? I'll get there (http://www.nysun.com/article/48268).

Back in the day, I worked as an apprentice millwright. We were union and we got that way because we voted in the union. How? By secret ballot, that's how. A petition was circulated, if a majority of workers wanted to vote to unionize, then a vote was held. A ballot was marked secretly and anonymously and then the votes were counted. Unionization depended on a majority vote.

What is it that the Democrats could do to make this process easier? Well, for one, they could do away with the secret ballot. It no secret that many workers will sign a petition, just to avoid the harassment that they will get for not signing. Then, they can vote NO in the election. The Democrats plan would do away with that dodge by taking the petition results as the final answer on unionization.

So ... now you have a right to force a union on a workplace through threats, intimidation and coercion? Well, I can see where the average Democrat might think you do. It sort of goes with the territory.

Meh.

Businessmen think they have a right to profit.
Unions think they have a right to work.

And the world continues to turn.

So ... now you have a right to force a union on a workplace through threats, intimidation and coercion?

no, the very opposite. the reason for card-check unionization is that it stops the bosses from swaying the process through threats, intimidation, coercion, and illegal promises of privileges. which is what actually happens now.

so on the one hand, we have people with actual power using actual coercion, and on the other we have people voluntarily signing up with a union to fight those bastards.

Unions think they have a right to work.

though right-to-work in the sense of the thread title is actually a fun bit of orwellian bullshit

no, the very opposite. the reason for card-check unionization is that it stops the bosses from swaying the process through threats, intimidation, coercion, and illegal promises of privileges. which is what actually happens now.

so on the one hand, we have people with actual power using actual coercion, and on the other we have people voluntarily signing up with a union to fight those bastards.

Since you are going to give an honest argument. :)

I will add on my own experience.

I worked at a truck company that was actually non-union. The teamsters popped by and tried to setup shop.

Management did it's own form of intimidation. Filming people walking into their meetings. Clipboard, taking down names etc.

In the end, the union didn't have anything to improve the conditions. They were ok for workers. So it didn't happen.

though right-to-work in the sense of the thread title is actually a fun bit of orwellian bullshit

Oh I know. Mrymi has his own business so anything he deems as taking money from him is EBIL!! EBIL I TELL YOU!

As I have always maintained.

Unionism is the direct failure of management.

A properly managed company does not need a union.

A properly managed company does not need a union.

And that's why the overwhelming majority of occupations aren't unionized; beyond the lower levels of the industry, it's nothing more than a hassle to be part of a union.

no, the very opposite. the reason for card-check unionization is that it stops the bosses from swaying the process through threats, intimidation, coercion, and illegal promises of privileges. which is what actually happens now.

so on the one hand, we have people with actual power using actual coercion, and on the other we have people voluntarily signing up with a union to fight those bastards.

Exactly--anyone who's gone through a unionization effort in the last thirty years knows exactly what you're talking about. And the effects of the anti-union policies of the last thirty years are evident--wages make up the smallest percentage of company expense in the last sixty years at least, and corporate profits are at their peak. Wonder why that is?

Oh I know. Mrymi has his own business so anything he deems as taking money from him is EBIL!! EBIL I TELL YOU!

As I have always maintained.

Unionism is the direct failure of management.

A properly managed company does not need a union.

Those last two statements are as true as the day is long. The problem is that unions like the power and money that more members bring. A secret ballot is the only way to prevent the intimidation that is present with the petition signing.

And that's why the overwhelming majority of occupations aren't unionized; beyond the lower levels of the industry, it's nothing more than a hassle to be part of a union.

That's a bit naive. Wal-Mart, for example, hasn't been unionized because they've figured out that it's easier to break the law and fire union organizers and deal with the largely non-existent consequences than actually take the chance that they'd be unionized. And they're far from alone.

Exactly--anyone who's gone through a unionization effort in the last thirty years knows exactly what you're talking about. And the effects of the anti-union policies of the last thirty years are evident--wages make up the smallest percentage of company expense in the last sixty years at least, and corporate profits are at their peak. Wonder why that is?

I'm going to bet neither one of you has been involved in the kind of organizing that goes on in the trades. Nazz, I know you have a union card of some sort, but I'll bet it's service. Let me tell you, though, a pipe fitter or iron worker can be every bit as intimidating as a manager with a camera.

Those last two statements are as true as the day is long. The problem is that unions like the power and money that more members bring. A secret ballot is the only way to prevent the intimidation that is present with the petition signing.

The real intimidation comes from management--it always has. In fact, it's the secret ballot that has caused a lot of these problems. It allows management time to go after organizers and intimidate other workers who might be sympathetic.

That's a bit naive. Wal-Mart, for example, hasn't been unionized because they've figured out that it's easier to break the law and fire union organizers and deal with the largely non-existent consequences than actually take the chance that they'd be unionized. And they're far from alone.

I'm talking about the desire of employees to unionize.

And that's why the overwhelming majority of occupations aren't unionized; beyond the lower levels of the industry, it's nothing more than a hassle to be part of a union.

And this doesn't carry over internationally because...?

I'm going to bet neither one of you has been involved in the kind of organizing that goes on in the trades. Nazz, I know you have a union card of some sort, but I'll bet it's service. Let me tell you, though, a pipe fitter or iron worker can be every bit as intimidating as a manager with a camera.

I went through an organization campaign when I was driving a forklift at a grocery warehouse--no lack of tough guys there--and even though I wasn't a fan of the union at the time (my mistake), I never felt intimidated in the least by the organizers. Teamsters Union, as a matter of fact. But my bosses laid the pressure on real thick.

Now I'm represented by a teachers union, which frankly isn't very strong, but I'll take what I can get. I've got way better bennies than most people in my position, and while the pay isn't great, it's decent.

I'm talking about the desire of employees to unionize.

Yeah, and it would be very difficult to demonstrate that the present low degree of unionization is exclusively caused by employee opposition to unionization.

And this doesn't carry over internationally because...?

Because European trade unions are more powerful and can force workers to unionize whether they want it or not? Also, unemployment is a lot higher in Europe which means they're stuck between unionization and keeping their jobs or not unionizing them and likely losing them.

I'm talking about the desire of employees to unionize.

And I'm saying you're being a bit naive about it. There's a lot of desire to unionize in large parts of the US, and if this card check thing goes through, I predict you'll see a revival of the union, especially in the service industry.

Yeah, and it would be very difficult to demonstrate that the present low degree of unionization is exclusively caused by employee opposition to unionization.

They can if they want to. Given the shortage of skilled labor in this country, I don't think companies are in any position to threaten their computer programmers or financial analysts.

And I'm saying you're being a bit naive about it. There's a lot of desire to unionize in large parts of the US, and if this card check thing goes through, I predict you'll see a revival of the union, especially in the service industry.

In the lower level occupations, yes, but above that there's no chance. They have nothing to gain from unionization because it makes it harder to change jobs, and changing jobs is the easiest way for a skilled employee to get a pay raise.

I went through an organization campaign when I was driving a forklift at a grocery warehouse--no lack of tough guys there--and even though I wasn't a fan of the union at the time (my mistake), I never felt intimidated in the least by the organizers. Teamsters Union, as a matter of fact. But my bosses laid the pressure on real thick.

Now I'm represented by a teachers union, which frankly isn't very strong, but I'll take what I can get. I've got way better bennies than most people in my position, and while the pay isn't great, it's decent.

But you were a petition-signer, weren't you? How did the non-signers get treated? When the company I worked for in Ohio went union, non-signers were beat up, had tires slashed, no death threats, but promises of more physical harm followed a refusal to sign the petition. I wasn't for or against the union, but I signed, just to avoid the harassment.

I live in a "Right-To-Work" state, so I am fully aware that the term "Right-To-Work" is in fact a code name for "Right-To-Get-Fired". :rolleyes:

In the lower level occupations, yes, but above that there's no chance. They have nothing to gain from unionization because it makes it harder to change jobs, and changing jobs is the easiest way for a skilled employee to get a pay raise.

That's the way it's always been though, and that's where, numbers-wise, the majority of wage earners find themselves right now.

Because European trade unions are more powerful and can force workers to unionize whether they want it or not?

How do they manage that?

Also, unemployment is a lot higher in Europe which means they're stuck between unionization and keeping their jobs or not unionizing them and likely losing them.

Which is why France has both relatively high unemployment rates and very low unionization rates?

That's the way it's always been though, and that's where, numbers-wise, the majority of wage earners find themselves right now.

Wage earners, yes. Salary earners, no. By and large, most of our workforce is salaried but those that do earn wages are in rough shape.

Of course, I would have no problem with the people who do earn wages unionizing; maybe they can do a better job and stimulate some real reforms and improvements unlike the corrupt UAW or AFL-CIO who have done nothing but produce shoddy work and overpaid employees.

I have no problem with unionization in principle, so if the workers want to do so all the credit to them.

But you were a petition-signer, weren't you? How did the non-signers get treated? When the company I worked for in Ohio went union, non-signers were beat up, had tires slashed, no death threats, but promises of more physical harm followed a refusal to sign the petition. I wasn't for or against the union, but I signed, just to avoid the harassment.

Actually, I wasn't. And I never had a thing happen to me. I didn't even lose the friends who were avidly pro-union.

How do they manage that?

Because unions have a say in company management and hiring practices, and support laws which restrict hiring and firing of employees.

Which is why France has both relatively high unemployment rates and very low unionization rates?

Because France has ridiculously high taxes, restrictive labor laws, too much government control of the economy and a lot of protectionist sentiment?

Unionization doesn't harm an economy by itself...the US did very well with a relatively high unionization rate in the 1950's and 1960's/

A little clarification for those of you unfamiliar with the legislation: ‘right-to-work’ laws prohibit making union membership mandatory for employment. This still doesn’t stop union workers from harassing and intimidating employees into signing up and paying dues.

Secret ballots allow people to make their own decision free from coercion from either side. You are exceedingly naive if you think it is all one way. Wannabe union organizers can get very nasty if you do not support imposing a union on your shop. Likewise, I’m sure there are plenty of businesses that try to intimidate or bribe workers into not joining a union.

I tend to agree that unionization is a bad thing in the majority of cases. You take a portion of your income to give it to someone who is supposed to be looking out for your best interests, but more often than not is just interested in collecting your money.

Sure, there are companies which try to intimidate workers to keep a union out, but they are few and far between. Most companies don’t want the high turnover and bad moral of trying that kind of crap. Unions on the other hand, don’t give a shit if they piss you off so long as you will cough up their protection money.

Because unions have a say in company management and hiring practices, and support laws which restrict hiring and firing of employees.

And how does that amount to compelling unionization?

Because France has ridiculously high taxes, restrictive labor laws, too much government control of the economy and a lot of protectionist sentiment?

So? That doesn't answer the question.

If unionization is really compelled by fear of unemployment, then it would follow that those most fearful of unemployment would be most inclined to unionize... yet instead, a country on the upper end of the scale in unemployment rates is at the bottom of the scale in unionization.

Indeed, some of the European countries with the lower unemployment rates (say, Sweden and Denmark) also have extremely high unionization rates.

It doesn't seem to me that you can reasonably claim that low unionization rates in the US are due to low unemployment rates.

And how does that amount to compelling unionization?

You're pretty unlikely to be hired in a unionized industry if you're not a member.

If unionization is really compelled by fear of unemployment, then it would follow that those most fearful of unemployment would be most inclined to unionize... yet instead, a country on the upper end of the scale in unemployment rates is at the bottom of the scale in unionization.

Unionization is a product of job insecurity, low economic growth, and stagnant wage growth. However, it's not always going to happen, especially if the economy is already in poor shape; if they decide to unionize, the company might just close its factory and leave whereas in a country with low unemployment and strong growth they would not be compelled to do so due to the lost profits.

There's a lot that goes in to it.

Indeed, some of the European countries with the lower unemployment rates (say, Sweden and Denmark) also have extremely high unionization rates.

But they also have policies that are very conducive to economic growth and low unemployment.

It doesn't seem to me that you can reasonably claim that low unionization rates in the US are due to low unemployment rates.

They play a role, but they're not the only thing. The decline of manufacturing as a major employer also played a role, as does the increasing labor specialization due to technology.

Sure, there are companies which try to intimidate workers to keep a union out, but they are few and far between.

ha!

A little clarification for those of you unfamiliar with the legislation: ‘right-to-work’ laws prohibit making union membership mandatory for employment. This still doesn’t stop union workers from harassing and intimidating employees into signing up and paying dues.

Secret ballots allow people to make their own decision free from coercion from either side. You are exceedingly naive if you think it is all one way. Wannabe union organizers can get very nasty if you do not support imposing a union on your shop. Likewise, I’m sure there are plenty of businesses that try to intimidate or bribe workers into not joining a union.

I tend to agree that unionization is a bad thing in the majority of cases. You take a portion of your income to give it to someone who is supposed to be looking out for your best interests, but more often than not is just interested in collecting your money.

Sure, there are companies which try to intimidate workers to keep a union out, but they are few and far between. Most companies don’t want the high turnover and bad moral of trying that kind of crap. Unions on the other hand, don’t give a shit if they piss you off so long as you will cough up their protection money.
A little more clarification. Right to work means that your company can fire you without cause and there's jack shit you can do about it. Unions provide job protection and force employers to show cause before getting rid of you.

You're pretty unlikely to be hired in a unionized industry if you're not a member.

And this is a simple solution to a free-rider problem... it is not an attempt to force workers to do something that is against their (collective) interest.

There's a lot that goes in to it.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

There is much more to this question than "companies these days are properly managed."

But they also have policies that are very conducive to economic growth and low unemployment.

So if "unionization is a product of job insecurity, low economic growth, and stagnant wage growth," why do countries with "policies that are very conducive to economic growth and low unemployment" have such high unionization rates?

They play a role, but they're not the only thing. The decline of manufacturing as a major employer also played a role, as does the increasing labor specialization due to technology.

And this does not apply elsewhere?

A little clarification for those of you unfamiliar with the legislation: ‘right-to-work’ laws prohibit making union membership mandatory for employment.

State intervention in the labor market in the service of the employer, yes - designed to weaken unions by preventing them from collecting dues from beneficiaries who choose not to join.

Sure, there are companies which try to intimidate workers to keep a union out, but they are few and far between. Most companies don’t want the high turnover and bad moral of trying that kind of crap. Unions on the other hand, don’t give a shit if they piss you off so long as you will cough up their protection money.

The double standard here is so obvious that I should not even need to point it out.

And this is a simple solution to a free-rider problem... it is not an attempt to force workers to do something that is against their (collective) interest.

Well, yes, but that's not a desirable situation in itself. All the unions are doing is preventing things from getting worse, although at the same time they're also not improving.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

There is much more to this question than "companies these days are properly managed."

Companies are more properly managed, but it has more to do with labor specialization than the companies themselves. That specialization makes it harder to find good workers in a particular field, giving them more leverage and enabling them to achieve the same or better kinds of pay and benefit gains that union employees would get.

So if "unionization is a product of job insecurity, low economic growth, and stagnant wage growth," why do countries with "policies that are very conducive to economic growth and low unemployment" have such high unionization rates?

Because they had the first one before the second. The prosperity of places like Denmark, Sweden, or Norway is a recent development; during the earlier part of the century, they had economic problems and that played a role in their high unionization rate.

And this does not apply elsewhere?

It's especially important in the US because we have a significantly smaller industrial sector and more high-tech and specialized jobs overall.

The Democrats are paying back debts to the union machinery by making it much easier to establish a union workplace. How? I'll get there (http://www.nysun.com/article/48268).

Back in the day, I worked as an apprentice millwright. We were union and we got that way because we voted in the union. How? By secret ballot, that's how. A petition was circulated, if a majority of workers wanted to vote to unionize, then a vote was held. A ballot was marked secretly and anonymously and then the votes were counted. Unionization depended on a majority vote.

What is it that the Democrats could do to make this process easier? Well, for one, they could do away with the secret ballot. It no secret that many workers will sign a petition, just to avoid the harassment that they will get for not signing. Then, they can vote NO in the election. The Democrats plan would do away with that dodge by taking the petition results as the final answer on unionization.

So ... now you have a right to force a union on a workplace through threats, intimidation and coercion? Well, I can see where the average Democrat might think you do. It sort of goes with the territory.

When we lose the 40 hour work week, don't come crying to me.

When we lose the 40 hour work week, don't come crying to me.

I think Myrmidonisia is a business owner, so he might not be weeping if we lose the 40 hour work week.

I think Myrmidonisia is a business owner, so he might not be weeping if we lose the 40 hour work week.

I don't own the business, not this one, anyway. I'm a better employee than owner. When you own a business, it tends to be the focal point of your life. Not your wife, not your kids, but the business. Everything revolves around it. I got so wrapped up in making little satcom parts that I couldn't do much else. I sold out to a much bigger company and have been happily drawing a check from them ever since.

Now, when the forty hour week disappears, I'll probably go back to my father-in-law's farm and start on that full time. There's a 60+ hour a week job, for ya.

I don't own the business, not this one, anyway. I'm a better employee than owner. When you own a business, it tends to be the focal point of your life. Not your wife, not your kids, but the business. Everything revolves around it. I got so wrapped up in making little satcom parts that I couldn't do much else. I sold out to a much bigger company and have been happily drawing a check from them ever since.

Now, when the forty hour week disappears, I'll probably go back to my father-in-law's farm and start on that full time. There's a 60+ hour a week job, for ya.
I'm with you on that. My free time is more precious to me than anything else--thus the academic life. I love the vacation time. ;)

And that's why the overwhelming majority of occupations aren't unionized; beyond the lower levels of the industry, it's nothing more than a hassle to be part of a union.Vote no proposition Google Plex.

When we lose the 40 hour work week, don't come crying to me.

I think I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. Only losers work a 40 hour week. If you own a business, or even if you are just a salaried employee, 40 hours isn't enough time to get the job done.

I screw around here in between meetings, but I'm usually still at my desk or out in the lab until 7, or so, most nights. That'd be okay if I got to work at 9, but I'm usually here at 6, or 7, at the latest.

I screw around here in between meetings, but I'm usually still at my desk or out in the lab until 7, or so, most nights. That'd be okay if I got to work at 9, but I'm usually here at 6, or 7, at the latest.

sounds like you could use a union

sounds like you could use a union

Some work just plain requires people to work more. I'd rather have people do the amount of work needed for the job to get done than be held to some arbitrary 40-hour limit. I mean, if someone needs to work more, they need to work more...anything else leads to economic inefficiency, fewer profits, and less growth for the company and for the employee's income.

sounds like you could use a union
This is child's play compared to what I did when I had my own company. I can still spend 'til the wee hours in the lab, but I try harder to go home.

I have some friends that work at Boeing. I think they are the only represented engineers in the U.S. Most don't like it. It stifles things like bonuses, stock options, and merit raises. It doesn't inhibit layoffs or outsourcing. What's the point of having three years of guaranteed 3.5% raises, when you're passing up the rest of the compensation packages that can run well past 10% of your annual salary?

While forty hour weeks are for losers, unions are for the mediocre.

Some work just plain requires people to work more. I'd rather have people do the amount of work needed for the job to get done than be held to some arbitrary 40-hour limit. I mean, if someone needs to work more, they need to work more...anything else leads to economic inefficiency, fewer profits, and less growth for the company and for the employee's income.

I read a story several years ago about how the French had legislated a maximum work week. There were plenty of examples of how senior(responsible) employees took their laptops to the parking lots and worked there, until the job was finished.

A little more clarification. Right to work means that your company can fire you without cause and there's jack shit you can do about it. Unions provide job protection and force employers to show cause before getting rid of you.

You are thinking of At-Will employment, not right-to-work.
Substantially different things.

At-will employment can be terminated by either party for no reason whatsoever provided there is not an implicit contract (such as a termination process specified in the employee handbook) or violation of anti-discrimination laws. Some states recognize a wrongful termination suit against an employer in at-will employment if the termination was influenced by malice or simply not acting 'in good faith'.

If you have such drastically horrid experiences in the workforce, maybe you should evaluate your own behavior rather than assuming all employers are evil bastards out to screw over the employee. In my experience, and in the experiences of my friends and acquaintances, employers bullying you to stay away from a union are exceedingly rare and generally have cause to fire an employee (and I have seen many workers bitch about getting fired when they deserved it but, rather than learning from the experience and maybe improving, just complain about how the employer is an evil slave driver firing workers indiscriminately for no reason whatsoever).

Employee turnover gets expensive - you don't just do it willy-nilly.

You are thinking of At-Will employment, not right-to-work.
Substantially different things.

At-will employment can be terminated by either party for no reason whatsoever provided there is not an implicit contract (such as a termination process specified in the employee handbook) or violation of anti-discrimination laws. Some states recognize a wrongful termination suit against an employer in at-will employment if the termination was influenced by malice or simply not acting 'in good faith'.What you're describing as at will is in my experience right to work, and I've lived in right to work states most of my life.



Employee turnover gets expensive - you don't just do it willy-nilly.
Tell it to Wal-Mart. They depend on turnover in order to keep their labor costs low. They recently decided to cap salaries in order to increase labor turnover--they don't want people staying around outside of salaried employees.

What you're describing as at will is in my experience right to work, and I've lived in right to work states most of my life.




Tell it to Wal-Mart. They depend on turnover in order to keep their labor costs low. They recently decided to cap salaries in order to increase labor turnover--they don't want people staying around outside of salaried employees.
Entropia is right about the legal definitions of employment at will, vs right-to-work, but I think we're on the same page.

Nazz, Wal-Mart is just every evil that isn't fundamental Christianity, isn't it? They may be the largest employer (besides the government, and that's who we should really be worried about) in the U.S., but they aren't the only one. Why should we punish good companies with bad labor laws, just because the MBAs at Wal-Mart can figure out new ways to turn a dollar? Hell, banks have been figuring out how to create new "profit centers" for years and I don't see you railing against them.