Public sector unions for non-businesses - should they exist?

[TimG]

Collective bargaining is important because unions have more power to negotiate for good working conditions and wages than individuals. This has radically changed our society for the better, and bought about things like the 40 hour work week, weekends, sick pay, safe working conditions, proper safety equipment and so on.

Except now these working conditions are embodied in law and extended to everyone. The only thing unions do today is protect the lazy and prevent people who work hard from being rewarded for their efforts.

[August1991]

Collective bargaining is important because unions have more power to negotiate for good working conditions and wages than individuals. This has radically changed our society for the better, and bought about things like the 40 hour work week, weekends, sick pay, safe working conditions, proper safety equipment and so on.

What nonsense.

Did collective bargaining create the Internet? Did it create cell phones? Did it invent penicillin? Did it allow free trade?

Several hundred million ordinary Chinese are richer today because of free trade. We are all, billions of us, better off because of inventions in the past.

Trade and inventions make people richer and the world better; unions - collective bargaining - is usually a zero-sum game.

Edited December 12, 2012 by August1991

[Bonam]

Collective bargaining is important because unions have more power to negotiate for good working conditions and wages than individuals. This has radically changed our society for the better, and bought about things like the 40 hour work week, weekends, sick pay, safe working conditions, proper safety equipment and so on.

So now that all these good things are around, and most have been codified into laws, can we say "thanks very much" to unions, "you've done your job", and let them retire?

[Michael Hardner]

Moreover, when I buy a coffee at Tim Horton's, it's not according to their rules. If I don't like the coffee, I can go elsewhere.

These simplifications are repeated constantly, and they ignore what happens when enterprises get very big and assert control and restrict choice.

[Michael Hardner]

What nonsense.

Did collective bargaining create the Internet? Did it create cell phones? Did it invent penicillin? Did it allow free trade?

You call it nonsense, then come up with a list of things union didn't do. That's the nonsensical part. They provided a structure for workers to demand benefits, to give more options to working people who otherwise wouldn't have had them. It's about balancing power.

[Michael Hardner]

So now that all these good things are around, and most have been codified into laws, can we say "thanks very much" to unions, "you've done your job", and let them retire?

Yes, if you're naive enough to think that businesses will just give up benefits without any external pressure.

When is the work week going to be reduced again, for example ? The very question sounds ridiculous - why is that ? Because the idea that economic benefits be shared across all levels of society has been made to sound ridiculous today.

[Argus]

Union sympathizers like to trot that myth out a lot, but it's simply not true. Most private companies negotiate your salary when you're hired. The bigger the company, the more room you have to negotiate.

Complete drivel.

[Argus]

Except Argus, Big Business no longer employs unionised labour.

That would be a surprise to the UAW or the United Mineworkers.

Unions largely exist in the public sector - this is true in America and Canada.

\

True. Corporate America, and by extension, Canada, have been very succesful in defeating unions, and in lowering wages and cutting benefits. Governments have been less enthusiastic at screwing their workers over.

Your argument makes no sense. The old 1850s or 1930s Marxist image of Labour vs. Capital no longer exists.

On the contrary. Those times have been rising again, with capital, in he form of corporate America and billionaires, doing their level best through paying off politicians, to reduce workers to the status of peons without rights.

Nowadays, the rich, capitalist Republicans employ non-unionised workers. They are all tired of paying taxes to unionized public sector employees.

They are tired of paying taxes, period. That's why they've been buying up politicians down south to cut welfare, cut pensions, cut medicaire adn the like, and cut the salaries of their workers, as well as cutting the workers who enforce various regulatory frameworks. Corporate America wants no check on its power or on the ways it can accumulate wealth.

Argus, how do you define "set"

Go apply for a job with one of the banks, or with wal-mart, or with a warehouse, and tell them how much you want to make. They'll tell you what the job pays, and if you don't like it get lost. You might have some room to negotiate a little at small enterprises or if you're an executive or lawyer, or someone with a skill set which is in shortage, but even there no organization wants a large differential between what two workers doing the same work earn.

[Argus]

Collective bargaining is important because unions have more power to negotiate for good working conditions and wages than individuals. This has radically changed our society for the better, and bought about things like the 40 hour work week, weekends, sick pay, safe working conditions, proper safety equipment and so on.

You only have to compare the working conditions of a place like the US, which has very few, very weak unions, and a place like Germany, or the Nordic countries. The working conditions in the latter are far and away better than the US in every respect.

[Argus]

Except now these working conditions are embodied in law and extended to everyone. The only thing unions do today is protect the lazy and prevent people who work hard from being rewarded for their efforts.

Drivel. The productivity in the nordic countries and in Germany continues to improve. And very few of the working conditions here are embodied in law. As an example, if your manager decides to move you to the midnight shift. What recourse do you have? None. If your manager decides to punish you for something you might or might not have done, what prove does he need to offer and what can he do? Answer is, he doesn't need proof, and he can do anything he wants. Suppose he wants to call you a moron on a regular basis in front fo the rest of the staff. What are you going to do about it in a non-unioin job? Suppse you get sick and he decides to fire you because you temporarily can't keep up? Nothing to stop him in the good old US, unless you're in a union shop. There are tons of areas where management can screw you over, and does, unless there is a union to intervene. Forced unpaid overtime, use of underage labour, and unsafe working conditions abound in non-union workplaces, especially in the US.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Argus

[madmax]

Every unionized shop has managers who are not in the union. They always negotiate their own pay. Why would non-union workers be any different?

Not EVERY , but Many, and also MANY Unionized shops have Unionized Managers.

I do understand that there are people who "believe" they can negotiate a better wage but looking at the "Right To Work" states , it simply fails miserably and you have alot of part time , temp , illegal immigrants, and masses of migrant workers working for unsustainable wages.

Lots of high turnover, and yes lots of labour lurking around for their next meal, vs a sustainable future.

This leads to STUPID decision by other Capitalist sectors to gerry mander their markets to allow for more consumption at impossible to sustain schemes.

Take a look at US mortgage scams , and why they went down this deadly path.

I have many friends in General Labour in Southern states, and they make very little money. Then taken in by the Bank Mortgage Marketing, and with little regards for sustainability , create their own Jenga systems, because those kinds of wages cannot pay for housing.

That cancer spread across the US and caused a massive downfall.

But lets attack unions. Cause, we need a bogey man.

Right now the unionization rate is low in Canada, especially the private sector. That is more to do with the fact that organizing tends to happen in more trades related spheres, and many trades are on the decline for the foreseeable future and, as long as their is a desire to bring in Cheap Foreing Migrant Workers (like the Chinese Electricians and Welders that were killed in Alberta) this trend will continue and be enhanced by our Federal Government.

Provinciall and globally Private Sector Unions have been displaced by Temp Agency Organizations with significantly more money, power and lobbying capabilities then unions.

They are the biggest most successful way to keep labour from organizing and they keep people working for poor wages and with precarious job security.

Elect to Work (The term for Temp Workers) is already entrenched in our labour force. This has been far more significant a change then trying to challenge the Rand Formula, (something upheld by the supreme court) , and create the Orwellian "Right to Work, Right to be Poor" laws.

There are suckers born every minute. I wouldn't be surprised to see people shoot themselves in the foot. It happens all the time, its happening now and our governments are complicit. Now they would like the right wing media to drive the agenda and get everyone to submit to this misguided idealogy.

[Pliny]

One thing is certain change is necessary.

A company that holds a monopoly, as long as its service or product is in demand, can more easily meet the demands of its workers. The same is true of government, as it essentially holds a monopoly. The costs of increased demands are met with increased prices to consumers and, in the case of government, increased taxation to the taxpayer.

Usually monopolies in the private sector do not last as their overhead becomes too great thus leading to smaller companies having a competitive edge in costs. National Governments of course never lose their monopoly until the country's Constitution is challenged.

This is the main problem with public sector unions. The consumer, or the taxpayer in the case of government, eventually becomes disgruntled witht he cost to them.

A competitive market could support unions but it is essentially not necessary. All a business has to do in order to attract workers is offer a better wage and/or benefit package. In the area of unskilled workers, in the past they had no protection but for their own record of production and could be easily replaced.

The biggest accomplishment of Unions was to take a crummy job and turn it into a career.

[dre]

So now that all these good things are around, and most have been codified into laws, can we say "thanks very much" to unions, "you've done your job", and let them retire?

Nope, because there is still a lot to do. Society places less value on workers than ever before in history, and the workers share of the reward for domestic production is shrinking fast even though their productivity has increased.

We also have an extremely anti-labor environment where governments are actively working with businesses to reduce the power of labor. They would like us to live like folks in the 3rd world so that they can "compete".

So no... workers fighting for fair treatment and the existance of a middle class isnt a job thats just "done" one day. Its a permanent struggle.

Edited December 12, 2012 by dre

[Fletch 27]

Nope, because there is still a lot to do. Society places less value on workers than ever before in history, and the workers share of the reward for domestic production is shrinking fast even though their productivity has increased.

We also have an extremely anti-labor environment where governments are actively working with businesses to reduce the power of labor. They would like us to live like folks in the 3rd world so that they can "compete".

So no... workers fighting for fair treatment and the existance of a middle class isnt a job thats just "done" one day. Its a permanent struggle.

What about workers like Bricklayers and carpenters and Masons, hell, evenn parts and Auto suppliers that dont want to belong to a union.. Im assuming you would be ok with them Opting out and working side by side with the union Bretheren?

[Argus]

What about workers like Bricklayers and carpenters and Masons, hell, evenn parts and Auto suppliers that dont want to belong to a union.. Im assuming you would be ok with them Opting out and working side by side with the union Bretheren?

Why, exactly, would someone not want to belong to a union?

"Damn it! I"m tired of making so much money and having benefits! I want to be treated like crap and paid almost nothing! Let me out of this here union!"

[cybercoma]

Why, exactly, would someone not want to belong to a union?

"Damn it! I"m tired of making so much money and having benefits! I want to be treated like crap and paid almost nothing! Let me out of this here union!"

Fletch believes people are treated better and get more benefits if they don't negotiate their contracts collectively.

[Fletch 27]

Absolutely I do! No one can negotiate a deal that's great for ME other than myself. I'm a big strong boy... Free mind and will. I don't need to be held back by slower "bretheren".

[Bonam]

Why, exactly, would someone not want to belong to a union?

How about if the union supports the NDP but the person is a conservative supporter? How about if the union participates in boycotts of Israel but the person is a supporter of Israel? How about if the union collects considerable dues and uses them on political advocacy for causes that the person disagrees with?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Bonam

[Fletch 27]

And BINGO was his name-oh.

[Argus]

Absolutely I do! No one can negotiate a deal that's great for ME other than myself. I'm a big strong boy... Free mind and will. I don't need to be held back by slower "bretheren".

The statistics are clear that in the US 'right to work' states salaries and benefits are lower than in states where unions are not under attack. Working conditions and benefits are far greater in countries in Europe which are more heavily unionized. Maybe there are individuals who can do better with certain companies, but those would be a very, very, very small minority.

[Argus]

How about if the union supports the NDP but the person is a conservative supporter?

That happens to be exactly the case with me. But you know, I've never known a political party that did only things I liked, and didn't do anything I didn't like. That includes the Conservatives. So why should I expect any differently of unions?

How about if the union participates in boycotts of Israel but the person is a supporter of Israel? How about if the union collects considerable dues and uses them on political advocacy for causes that the person disagrees with?

Looking up, all your reasons boil down to one: what if the union agitates for political causes with which I disagree? And all I can say is that the good they do for you far outweighs the largely tertiary affects on you of their political activism.

btw, nothing stops you from attending the meetings and voting against the current people, or of complaining to your local steward, who will invariably communicate such things upward. I know when members buttonhole me about things they don't like I certainly let members of our executive, incl our president know about it.

[Bonam]

The statistics are clear that in the US 'right to work' states salaries and benefits are lower than in states where unions are not under attack.

Those states also have lower costs of living. The salaries normalized to purchasing power are higher in right to work states. Right to work states also have lower unemployment rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#Studies_of_economic_impact

[Fletch 27]

Should the union decide what is best for me and my family? Should the union dictate what political party I support via my "dues"?

I'm a free man... A big boy, very successful all on my own. Now diapers needed here.

[Bonam]

Looking up, all your reasons boil down to one: what if the union agitates for political causes with which I disagree? And all I can say is that the good they do for you far outweighs the largely tertiary affects on you of their political activism.

I completely disagree. I'd much rather keep looking for a job than take a job which requires me to join a union which allies itself with anti-semitic organizations/causes.

[Argus]

Those states also have lower costs of living. The salaries normalized to purchasing power are higher in right to work states. Right to work states also have lower unemployment rates.

http://en.wikipedia....economic_impact

The cost of living is very low in Bangladesh, too, so its salaries are 'normalized' to that. Bangladesh also has very low unemployment.

Most of the lower unemployment rates have come from corporations moving work from other states, to the ones where they can pay cheaper salaries, fewer, or no benefits, and not have to worry about unions. So it works in that regard, in moving jobs from one part of the country to another. But as more and more states become 'right to work' it fails to function as well. What it does do is to generally lower wages, lower health care coverage, and lower pensions.

And this is what you think is good for the middle class, right?