Another victory for the unions!

[Michael Hardner]

This is not true on a global scale, as far more people have been lifted out of chronic poverty, a term defined by the very economic "exceptionalism" of western wealth. "More people"...where?

I agree 100% that Globalization has been great for the middle classes of emerging nations.

[bush_cheney2004]

But even if you dont find the current situation alarming, then consider the trend. The top couple of % control twice as big a share of the pie as they did 15 years ago. Project that out another 10 years, and another 10.....

Or project the largest loss of wealth by the same group in the past 4 years...then another 10 years, and another.....aren't meaningless projections fun?

[Shady]

Yes, kind of like today. A lengthy recession/depression with few prospects. When the economy turned around though it provided opportunity for many not just a few.

Absolutely. But not because of Long or FDR.

[Michael Hardner]

Care to define this class of "lowest earners" and provide data showing the proportion of people in this class over time?

Clearly you're referring to the study that came out last week that measured earnings "over time". I think we'll have to wait until somebody analyzes that study before we can say definitively what it means. Personally, I think it's meaningless to say that people earn more over time. Of course they do. Of course people tend to make more when they're in their 50s, than 40s and 30s.

The usual definition I see of "lowest earners" is bottom quintile, and that by definition is constant at 20%. Or do you mean the proportion of people making minimum wage? If so, see Table 10 here, which shows that the % of people making minimum wage or lower is near historical lows after declining continuously for almost 30 years (it was lowest in 2006 and has risen slightly since then, but note that it actually fell again from 2010 to 2011 as we entered the recovery from the recession).

That's interesting.

We often see claims about how the "middle class is disappearing" or how the "average American is being impoverished", and yet I have never seen numbers that actually provide credence to these claims. Yes, the top earners are gaining wealth faster than everyone else, but that doesn't mean everyone else is being impoverished.

The measure that I care about is real wage gains vs. inflation. If you are challenging this, then I can try to Google up something for you but unless we're talking urban legend it seems to be agreed on that that is the case.

I think that relative poverty is not as important as absolute poverty and for that reason I'm heartened by the stat you provided. ( I believe it, no need for a link. )

[Michael Hardner]

...

Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.

Dre - since you just did this research can you put the link on here for us ?

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree 100% that Globalization has been great for the middle classes of emerging nations.

So what's the problem? Does "union brother/sisterhood only extend to a nation's border or continent? Should well paid foreign nationals working in the USA (including Canadians) be forced to go home for the sake of American citizens seeking higher paid employment, the exact argument being made against cheaper Chinese labour in Alberta?

[Michael Hardner]

Absolutely. But not because of Long or FDR.

I'm starting to think that individual presidents mostly don't have much effect on short term booms and busts. So, I agree on that. But when the economy took off there was much to be shared.

[Michael Hardner]

So what's the problem? Does "union brother/sisterhood only extend to a nation's border or continent?

The 'problem' as you describe it is that people could be doing better for themselves if they were smart enough to realize that.

Should well paid foreign nationals working in the USA (including Canadians) be forced to go home for the sake of American citizens seeking higher paid employment, the exact argument being made against cheaper Chinese labour in Alberta?

Foreign nationals and immigration is a drop in the bucket. I think if we had open borders then a lot of this would even out. Labour could move as freely as employers and you would have true competition for labour.

[bush_cheney2004]

The 'problem' as you describe it is that people could be doing better for themselves if they were smart enough to realize that.

Doing better for themselves compared to what? Compared to the phony credit wealth that has now returned for debt settlement? Do you think paying $900,000 for a semi detached home in Toronto is the answer?

Foreign nationals and immigration is a drop in the bucket. I think if we had open borders then a lot of this would even out. Labour could move as freely as employers and you would have true competition for labour.

Too late...labour is no longer bound by such limitations, which is one reason why the unions are caught with their pants down. Like capital, labour is now much more portable.

Edited November 23, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Boges]

I'm not sure if I could work in a Union. There are people in my company that are Unionized, that do what I do. I hear that if managers help out when times are busy GRIEVANCE!!!! If they show someone how to do something instead of instruct them how to do something GRIEVANCE!!!!!

It seems like they're more concerned with procedure than being productive workers collectively working for the good of the company. It's an attitude that doesn't really foster ambition or excellence either.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure if I could work in a Union. There are people in my company that are Unionized, that do what I do. I hear that if managers help out when times are busy GRIEVANCE!!!! If they show someone how to do something instead of instruct them how to do something GRIEVANCE!!!!!

Mostly true....the collective bargaining agreement would provide for certain work to only go to a designated trade. Unions pit individual drive and initiative against the collectivist mediocrity of the entire, seniority based group dynamic. Exceeding minimum productivity standards shines a bad light on the slackers and diminishes opportunity for much sought after overtime.

Doesn't apply to all unionized labour, but certainly in manufacturing based on my experience in union shops. Myself and fellow production engineers would take grievances written against us as a source of pride.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if I could work in a Union. There are people in my company that are Unionized, that do what I do. I hear that if managers help out when times are busy GRIEVANCE!!!! If they show someone how to do something instead of instruct them how to do something GRIEVANCE!!!!!

It seems like they're more concerned with procedure than being productive workers collectively working for the good of the company. It's an attitude that doesn't really foster ambition or excellence either.

Another thing is remuneration. Working in a unionized shop, it always bothered me that those who were willing to do the least amount of work possible took home the same pay as those for whom the job meant something. It gets demoralizing, and promotes apathy.

Working now for a company that values effort, I get asked into my manager's office and told what my raise is, and what my bonus is, and why I got both. I have no idea what anyone else is earning, and I don't care.

Edited November 23, 2012 by bcsapper

[Guest]

I'm not sure if I could work in a Union. There are people in my company that are Unionized, that do what I do. I hear that if managers help out when times are busy GRIEVANCE!!!! If they show someone how to do something instead of instruct them how to do something GRIEVANCE!!!!!

It seems like they're more concerned with procedure than being productive workers collectively working for the good of the company. It's an attitude that doesn't really foster ambition or excellence either.

True story:

A friend of mine was upgrading the controls system in a pulp mill, and once it was fully operational it was entirely the work of the instrumentation department. The electricians, who used to have something to do with the old system, were now shut out. The union protested, and my friend had to install a switch that only electricians could touch, that could turn the system on or off. Once an electrician had switched it on, it probably would never be touched again.

[Boges]

Exceeding minimum productivity standards shines a bad light on the slackers and diminishes opportunity for much sought after overtime.

Totally agree, it's as if what's good for the Union supersedes what's good for the company. I actually got some overtime this week because people were off and we had some extra project. I gladly took it but I wasn't dragging my heels in order to get it.

I'd imagine exposing slackers is made very difficult by a collective agreement because those slackers end up brining more money in the way of overtime.

[cybercoma]

as more and more power falls into the wealthiest, we will see more socialism take root. We also have the odd circumstance where the wealthy are now saying that the lowest earners are to blame for these results.

People don't seem to understand the history of social welfare. What you posted here is absolutely correct. Bismarck didn't start social assistance policies in the 19th century out of benevolence. It was to keep socialism in check.

[dre]

Dre - since you just did this research can you put the link on here for us ?

Yeah sure sorry.

http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7?op=1

The stats I posted were a quicking cherry picking of the points made here.

[dre]

Another thing is remuneration. Working in a unionized shop, it always bothered me that those who were willing to do the least amount of work possible took home the same pay as those for whom the job meant something. It gets demoralizing, and promotes apathy.

Working now for a company that values effort, I get asked into my manager's office and told what my raise is, and what my bonus is, and why I got both. I have no idea what anyone else is earning, and I don't care.

Another thing is remuneration. Working in a unionized shop, it always bothered me that those who were willing to do the least amount of work possible took home the same pay as those for whom the job meant something. It gets demoralizing, and promotes apathy.

I see this "lazy unionists" claim repeating over and over again, and Iv searched hard for some evidence of it, but I havent found any. In fact, reports on the productivity of union shops vs non union shops show that theres no real difference in productivity at all. Read any of the recent harbor reports for facts and figures.

You are parroting an urban myth.

[Guest]

I see this "lazy unionists" claim repeating over and over again, and Iv searched hard for some evidence of it, but I havent found any. In fact, reports on the productivity of union shops vs non union shops show that theres no real difference in productivity at all. Read any of the recent harbor reports for facts and figures.

You are parroting an urban myth.

No I'm not. I'm talking about actual experience. I never said union members were lazy or unproductive. I said that unions allow lazy and unproductive workers to work alongside and earn the same pay as harder workers.

[Michael Hardner]

Doing better for themselves compared to what? Compared to the phony credit wealth that has now returned for debt settlement? Do you think paying $900,000 for a semi detached home in Toronto is the answer?

Better compared to a better deal. I don't get what the strawmen that you offer are about.

Too late...labour is no longer bound by such limitations, which is one reason why the unions are caught with their pants down. Like capital, labour is now much more portable.

Labour is indeed bound. The owners of labour are not bound by limitations such as that. I can't move to China any more than they can move here.

[Michael Hardner]

For those of you who have problems with unions - the drive to mediocrity, and so on - if you could suggest something else perhaps others could see a third way.

For example, seniority is a way to ensure that people aren't pushed out the door as soon as they get older. Collective bargaining can get better wages for workers.

If you don't have anything else to offer then I guess unionization - including the problems you have with it - will be the only other option.

[Guest]

Seniority is also a way to ensure that younger people are bumped out of their job by people who cannot do their job when layoffs occur. Six of one.

Working for a decent company is a good way to get a better wage.

It's not that unions are all bad. They are just not all good.

[Michael Hardner]

So do you have an alternative then ?

[cybercoma]

So do you have an alternative then ?

The alternative is no unions and every worker negotiates his/her own pay and benefits for his/her self.

[Peter F]

No I'm not. I'm talking about actual experience. I never said union members were lazy or unproductive. I said that unions allow lazy and unproductive workers to work alongside and earn the same pay as harder workers.

Wrong. Unions have nothing to do with that. Its management that allows lazy and unproductive workers to work alongside and earn the same pay as harder workers. Unions cannot sack or discipline employees. Thats managements job.

[dre]

If you don't have anything else to offer then I guess unionization - including the problems you have with it - will be the only other option.

I posted a new idea.

The multinational that owned Harmac, a pulp and paper plant in Nanaimo decided they could not turn a profit there either, and was going to shut it down and liquidate. With a bit of backing from investors and government (in the form of loan guarantees) the union/workers purchased an ownership stake, and the previous managers were turfed out on their ass. Once the workers got a look at the real books, and has some actual responsibility for the fate of the company they accepted a reduction in wages and benefits, and the flattened organizational structure made the operation more efficient.

The mill is still open, and its profitable again now. Workers are recieving dividends that partially offset losses in wages, and the plant is now looking to expand.

Quote

An employee backed purchase of the Harmac Pacific mill site has created a diversified industrial site centered around a highly competitive, low cost Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft pulp production facility. The shared focus of all owners is to maximize the profit potential of the Harmac Pacific pulp mill and associated property and facilities.

The organizational ownership structure is unique to British Columbia industrial manufacturing, for a business of this scale. Harmac Pacific has moved from a traditional labour model based upon the often conflicting self interests of owners, managers and labour, to a new model based upon employee ownership and common interest, focused on a commitment to the profitable operation of the business.

Each permanent employee has committed to purchase a $25,000 ownership stake in the company over a three year period. Employee ownership currently stands at 25% of the company equity. This ownership interest, combined with a flattened organizational structure, has eliminated the inefficiencies that have developed in the forest products industry in this region.

http://www.harmacpac...m/employees.php

A similar approach could be tried with companies like Hostess. The workers with a little bit of help could buy an ownership stake, along with other interested investors, and ditch the traditional bloated and adversarial labor/management/owership model.

Unions benefit as much as anyone from a companies operations being profitable, and sustainable, and from them growing. The problem is trust. This can be solved by the co-ownership of companies by labor and investors. Labor would get a seat at the table, and a look at the companies real books.

Ones harmacs workers were co-owners with access to the books and a more direct stake in the companies success, they agreed to reduced wages. Now both labor and ownership are oriented in the same direction. Im not talking about full on socialism here... At harmac workers only actually own about a 25% share or something like that.

Now the company which was a few weeks away from liquidation, is now profitable, and the workers are recieving thousands in dividends per year.

West Jet is another example of this model in action.