The Future of Organized Labor

[Richardols]

jlw:

AGAIN, take all stories, of ALL states, and it wouldn’t be even close.

I’ll have to reserve judgment. I haven’t read that many stories of all the states.

 

[jlw]

LisaN: Oddly the union members I generally encounter are teachers not Teamsters

Same here, AND more often than not, the union plumber or electrician I have encountered have Bush/Cheney '04 stickers on their vans. Interesting, huh??

 

[davy39]

I have worked in union shops for most of my forty working years, and I will say the future of organized labor looks pretty grim. There again, I think the future of labor in general looks pretty bad. Say what you want about lazy, overpaid union workers, but there is no way any american worker can compete with a two dollar mexican worker, or a fifty cent an hour chinese worker. It just isn’t possible. I have seen many, many factories here in Ohio close and move overseas to take advantage of the meager wages and very lax pollution laws. Our own factory is just beginning to talk to a Brazilian factory about making a large portion of our candy. As soon as the deal goes through, about two hundred people will lose their jobs. It is very hard to find a decent job here in Ohio. I don’t know what the answer is, but don’t put all the blame on the american workers, union or non-union.

 

[SnorterLuster]

davy39:

I have worked in union shops for most of my forty working years, and I will say the future of organized labor looks pretty grim. There again, I think the future of labor in general looks pretty bad. Say what you want about lazy, overpaid union workers, but there is no way any american worker can compete with a two dollar mexican worker, or a fifty cent an hour chinese worker. It just isn’t possible. I have seen many, many factories here in Ohio close and move overseas to take advantage of the meager wages and very lax pollution laws. Our own factory is just beginning to talk to a Brazilian factory about making a large portion of our candy. As soon as the deal goes through, about two hundred people will lose their jobs. It is very hard to find a decent job here in Ohio. I don’t know what the answer is, but don’t put all the blame on the american workers, union or non-union.

You point out one of the real problems as the pace of globalization increases. My family owns a small manufacturing company that is hopefully about to celebrate its 100th anniversary. The last few years have been tough on the family and our employees. Our main competitor moved all its production to Mexico really cutting their costs. Like you say, the cost of labor, materials and regulation are so much cheaper there than they are here. Our business has always had a no layoff policy. If business is slow, the employees are still kept on board so this move by our competitor really was a threat.

To make a long story short, with help of our employees we greatly increased our productivity. Management (the family) took a pay cut and employees took a wage freeze. We were able to hang on with a better product and superior service for our customers. Recently, our competitor announce they were closing their plant in Mexico and exiting our part of the business.

My point is management and labor can work together to solve problems. We still have some problems and we are not totally out of the woods yet, but things are looking up. I do believe that with the globalization wages and prices are going to flatten and inflation will stay under control.

 

[Lisa_N]

davy39:

I have worked in union shops for most of my forty working years, and I will say the future of organized labor looks pretty grim. There again, I think the future of labor in general looks pretty bad. Say what you want about lazy, overpaid union workers,
…
It is very hard to find a decent job here in Ohio. I don’t know what the answer is, but don’t put all the blame on the american workers, union or non-union.

Say I haven’t heard a THING about blaming the workers. I think the management and leadership are being targeted. The tail is wagging the dog and the union bosses are not always serving the rank and file.

I do not think American workers are lazy nor in many cases are they overpaid. I think the post by snorter luster points out an essential element and that is working together with management to face the future realistically. It may be that some of the unions need to change their approach and management needs to be responsive as well. Maybe this won’t work in the huge companies but certainly it’s worth trying to find collaberation between the two elements. If unions get too greedy then the jobs will disappear.

FWIW one of my former clients bought a casting plant in Ohio. The union bankrupted the plant as the workers were able to extract massive benefits, days off, etc during the boom years. Unfortunately the union refused to acknowledge times had changed and getting the first day of hunting season off as a paid holiday probably didn’t make sense anymore. With the new ownership the workers were hired back at lower wages and benefits, the plant prospered and the workers had good jobs, albeit not the gravy train they’d had. However there was NO problem getting people to come and work. They knew the reality but the bosses didn’t.

Lisa N

 

[Philip_P]

Lisa N:

Philip a lot of what you suggest is easier said than done. The corruption in unions is legendary and the rank and file often suffer at the hands of the bosses(union not employer). You suggest voting out incompetent leaders. Unfortunately again, easier to suggest than implement. The entrenched leadership is quite hard to dislodge.

Oh, I don’t doubt that it’s difficult, but the difficulty of a task is not a very good excuse. My point in response to JLW, though, is that it should be the union members themselves, through their own internal mechanisms, that are making these decisions, not something imposed by legislative fiat. The ballot initiative JLW cited seems designed to curb the political influence of the unions, and in a grossly inappropriate fashion. It’d be one thing if it were, say, the union members themselves were floating a similar proposal, like an amendment to their bylaws, to be voted on by union members. It’s quite another when the same process is being foisted upon the unions by a ballot initiative.

If I could return to the SEIU for a moment, though, one thing that really excited me about the article I cited from the Times magazine is when they were talking about broadening the perspective globally. You’re right that we can’t be competitive if we hold our employers to things such as super-generous time off allowances. To combat this, though, I think it’s essential for unions to globalize, just as management and capital has. The answer to labor’s woes is not to turn back the clock and give up the gains they’ve won for American workers, but to push the clock forward and push for similar gains for workers overseas as well.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

Oh, I don’t doubt that it’s difficult, but the difficulty of a task is not a very good excuse. My point in response to JLW, though, is that it should be the union members themselves, through their own internal mechanisms, that are making these decisions, not something imposed by legislative fiat. .

I understand the theory but the reality is that political contributions, who can give them, and where they can go has been subject to 'legislative fiat" for many years.
Philip P:

The ballot initiative JLW cited seems designed to curb the political influence of the unions, and in a grossly inappropriate fashion. It’d be one thing if it were, say, the union members themselves were floating a similar proposal, like an amendment to their bylaws, to be voted on by union members. It’s quite another when the same process is being foisted upon the unions by a ballot initiative…

The union could create their own PAC or other organization and solicit VOLUNTARY donations. The way this is structured, people are forced to belong to the union and apparently have no say in how the dues are used or what candidates/issues are supported. If the union bosses really wanted the rank and file to direct donations they should have no problem in obtainng permission. I see the current situation as legalized arm twisting. By requiring the members to give assent to use of their dues for political processes, it gives the rank and file a real voice in the process. Why do you want the rank and file voices squelched?
Philip P:

If I could return to the SEIU for a moment, though, one thing that really excited me about the article I cited from the Times magazine is when they were talking about broadening the perspective globally. You’re right that we can’t be competitive if we hold our employers to things such as super-generous time off allowances. To combat this, though, I think it’s essential for unions to globalize, just as management and capital has. The answer to labor’s woes is not to turn back the clock and give up the gains they’ve won for American workers, but to push the clock forward and push for similar gains for workers overseas as well.

So you would suggest going into foreign countries and over riding their rules and regulations regarding employment? Yikes sounds like living dangerously.

Lisa N

 

[Philip_P]

Lisa N:

I understand the theory but the reality is that political contributions, who can give them, and where they can go has been subject to 'legislative fiat" for many years.

But nothing requires them to donate to Democrats. They could just as easily support Republicans or even a third party. In fact, if they did I suspect there would be no “ballot initiatives” floating around trying to make it more difficult for unions to make political contributions.

The union could create their own PAC or other organization and solicit VOLUNTARY donations. The way this is structured, people are forced to belong to the union and apparently have no say in how the dues are used or what candidates/issues are supported. If the union bosses really wanted the rank and file to direct donations they should have no problem in obtainng permission. I see the current situation as legalized arm twisting. By requiring the members to give assent to use of their dues for political processes, it gives the rank and file a real voice in the process. Why do you want the rank and file voices squelched?

If any of these changes were suggested, initiated, and implemented from within the union, I wouldn’t have a problem. The union’s business is their own, and while I hope they make decisions that are best for them and all their members, I think its up to them, not the voters at large, not the government, to make these decisions.

So you would suggest going into foreign countries and over riding their rules and regulations regarding employment? Yikes sounds like living dangerously.

But we already have that situation. NAFTA, the WTO, GATT, and other international trade regulations and regimes have already overriden or forced changes in countries’ rules and regulations regarding banking, tariffs, and other such matters. What we need is a corresponding globalization of the labor movement. And the role of unions wouldn’t be to “impose” anything, as they don’t have that power, not being a government (though I would like to see more labor regulations imposed by those that have authority to do so - you want to trade with us, we expect x and y as well…). Rather, all the tools that labor used when acting nationally would now be expanded. It’s more global solidarity rather than global impositions that are the unions’ potential strength.

 

[jlw]

The union’s business is their own, and while I hope they make decisions that are best for them and all their members, I think its up to them, not the voters at large, not the government, to make these decisions.

The government won’t “make the decision”. The union bosses won’t “make the decision”. But the rank and file union worker WILL, by freely checking the box that says “yes, use my hard-earned dollar for political purposes”, or “no, don’t use my dollar for politican purposes”.

All the government is doing is making sure that ALL government employees have PRIVATE choice. I think that is a good thing. If all of the employees check “yes, spend my money”, you’ll be happy?? Or are you afraid that more Tom, Dick, and Harrys will say “no”??? And what is it to you either way???

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

The government won’t “make the decision”. The union bosses won’t “make the decision”. But the rank and file union worker WILL, by freely checking the box that says “yes, use my hard-earned dollar for political purposes”, or “no, don’t use my dollar for politican purposes”.

All the government is doing is making sure that ALL government employees have PRIVATE choice. I think that is a good thing. If all of the employees check “yes, spend my money”, you’ll be happy?? Or are you afraid that more Tom, Dick, and Harrys will say “no”??? And what is it to you either way???

First, I hardly see how it matters whether the workers are in the public or the private sector. The unions are there to work for the workers’ interests, not their employers (ideally of course these interests are the same, but when push comes to shove it’s not the employer who the union is suppose to be supporting).

Second, my point is not whether or not the proposal is a good idea, but WHO is pushing the proposal. If it were an internal rules change, being proposed and adopted by the union, that would be their business and you would be right is asking “what is it to youeither way.” But that’s not what’s happening. The rule change is being foisted upon the union by non-union members. That is inappropriate.

The union’s internal decisions are theirs to make, not their employers, not the general voting population of the state of California, but the union’s alone.

But really, I’m far more interested in your take on the SEIU and the potential globalization of unions, not so much in continuing to discuss this ballot measure. I see your point and I’ve stated mine, can we move on to more interesting matters on this thread?

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

First, I hardly see how it matters whether the workers are in the public or the private sector. The unions are there to work for the workers’ interests, not their employers (ideally of course these interests are the same, but when push comes to shove it’s not the employer who the union is suppose to be supporting).

Second, my point is not whether or not the proposal is a good idea, but WHO is pushing the proposal. If it were an internal rules change, being proposed and adopted by the union, that would be their business and you would be right is asking “what is it to youeither way.” But that’s not what’s happening. The rule change is being foisted upon the union by non-union members. That is inappropriate.

The union’s internal decisions are theirs to make, not their employers, not the general voting population of the state of California, but the union’s alone.

But really, I’m far more interested in your take on the SEIU and the potential globalization of unions, not so much in continuing to discuss this ballot measure. I see your point and I’ve stated mine, can we move on to more interesting matters on this thread?

Philip, I am just calling your bluff. You know that if this passes, the majority of union workers whether (D) or (R) would NOT let their dollar go to the DNC (oops, I mean for political purposes). You would be unhappy if this were to occur.

The unions are paid by ME and YOU as taxpayers. MY PAYCHECK, MY TAXES go to the governement, and therefore its employees and their pay, their benefits, etc. THe government is beholded to the will of the taxpayer, not the other way around. If the taxpayers want a say in how government workers get paid, I think that is just. If the taxpayers want a say in how government spends MY money, and where it goes, I think that is just.

Giving government workers CHOICE in how their dollar is spent by the union “who is looking out for the worker” is A GOOD THING.

And, to be up front, this IS a creative (yet perfectly just) way to stop (or slow) the raging river of money to the DNC-supporting Teachers Unions that stand in the way of overhauling our failing public school system and rediculously expensive pension plans.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

Philip, I am just calling your bluff. You know that if this passes, the majority of union workers whether (D) or (R) would NOT let their dollar go to the DNC (oops, I mean for political purposes). You would be unhappy if this were to occur.

Ahh, so it isn’t about giving the workers a choice after all, it’s about making sure the DNC does not have a funding base to match the corporate funders which bankroll the RNC. Well again, if this were an internal union matter, that would be completely up to them - who am I to tell them wether to give money or not - but my point remains - by doing this through a ballot measure, it’s not an internal union matter. The true bluff is on the RNC side, with their pretense of caring about the workers’ choice, when really they’re just seeking to hamstring their political opponents.

But in the end, this is a side issue. Labor’s problems aren’t with who they’re funding or not funding. Sure, having the Dems in power probably makes things easier for them, but it’s no guarantee, nor does having the Reps in power make things impossible. Labor’s current ineffectiveness, to my mind, is the result of their inability to change to match the new global era. They’re still fighting the fights of a generation or more ago, with those outdated goals and tactics. When the labor movement began, it thought small, local, and it wasn’t until it began acting nationally that it gained clout. I think if labor wants to pull out of its slump it needs to do something similar. It’s no good pushing for higher wages in Michigan and ignoring the workers in Mexico - at least not if you want to keep jobs in Michigan. On the other hand, raise the working conditions of Mexican workers and you’ll have more jobs in Michigan (not to mention less Mexican workers leaving Mexico and trying to gain the dwindling Michigan jobs)

 

[TPJCatholic]

coporations double dip–they give to both major parties in order to cover their bases in case either candidate wins. They have been doing that for a very long time.

 

[jlw]

Philip: Ahh, so it isn’t about giving the workers a choice after all, it’s about making sure the DNC does not have a funding base to match the corporate funders which bankroll the RNC.

I’m not suggesting some law obstructing them from politically contributions. NOT saying they CAN’T still bankroll the DNC, all the power to 'em, but they can’t just take DUES (different than PROFITS, which can be spent as one wishes) and automatically spend it politically in one direction.

Well again, if this were an internal union matter, that would be completely up to them - who am I to tell them wether to give money or not - but my point remains - by doing this through a ballot measure, it’s not an internal union matter.

Again it’s a taxpayer issue. I WOULD NOT vote yes if this were pertaining to unions in the private sector.

The true bluff is on the RNC side, with their pretense of caring about the workers’ choice, when really they’re just seeking to hamstring their political opponents.

Tit for tat, the DNC will spend MILLIONS (and so will the democrat-voting government unions) to defeat the measure–and it won’t be about principle–It’ll be about control of a voting block. And quite frankly, I think there is a pretense among union bosses, who care about the union, and fatter government budgets, more than of their workers…or taxpayers.

But in the end, this is a side issue. Labor’s problems aren’t with who they’re funding or not funding.

Sure it is! You know how many union jobs could be had if environmental wackos didn’t get in the way of economic growth??? Power Plants?? ANWR?? New commericial and residential building?? Manufaturing?? Talk to auto-workers in Michigan about how the emission standards killed jobs

Sure, having the Dems in power probably makes things easier for them, but it’s no guarantee, nor does having the Reps in power make things impossible.

This is very reasonable thinking that just might cave the democratic stronghold on labor.

Labor’s current ineffectiveness, to my mind, is the result of their inability to change to match the new global era. They’re still fighting the fights of a generation or more ago, with those outdated goals and tactics.

Eaxctly, much like the democratic party–no new innovative ideas, only pressimism and obstruction.

When the labor movement began, it thought small, local, and it wasn’t until it began acting nationally that it gained clout.

I think having clout is a good thing. I just think that it needs to vote for lower taxes and less regulation, not just higher wages.

I think if labor wants to pull out of its slump it needs to do something similar. It’s no good pushing for higher wages in Michigan and ignoring the workers in Mexico - at least not if you want to keep jobs in Michigan. On the other hand, raise the working conditions of Mexican workers and you’ll have more jobs in Michigan (not to mention less Mexican workers leaving Mexico and trying to gain the dwindling Michigan jobs)

Great point. Michigan, and all states, must compete with third world labor markets, unfortunately (I say unfortunately because I want jobs to stay in America, but OTOH, I can’t deny that American business abroad is a good thing for developing countries whose economic prospects can only improve). We can compete by lowering our income taxes, and lessing regulation. If we relied more heavily on sales taxes, rather than income taxes, I gurantee that we would see more jobs stay stateside.

At the same time, WE can’t improve Mexican law, only Mexico can. We MUST pressure them by enforcing the borders, thereby cutting off their cheif economic cashcow—taxfree american dollars.

 

[Pete2]

The management of the union’s budget should be up to the union representatives. Anyone who supports breaking out one type of expense or another, and letting the union members micromange it, is really just supporting the destruction of the union.

If union members don’t like what their representatives are doing, they can vote for the representative that they like in the next election, try to reform the union by voicing their opinions, or else quit the union.

It’s the same model as we have for government (voters and elected officials), and businesses (stockholders and management). If stockholders and voters had a say in every move of a corporation or government, they would seize up and cease to function.

Pete

 

[jlw]

Pete2:

The management of the union’s budget should be up to the union representatives. Anyone who supports breaking out one type of expense or another, and letting the union members micromange it, is really just supporting the destruction of the union.

If union members don’t like what their representatives are doing, they can vote for the representative that they like in the next election, try to reform the union by voicing their opinions, or else quit the union.

It’s the same model as we have for government (voters and elected officials), and businesses (stockholders and management). If stockholders and voters had a say in every move of a corporation or government, they would seize up and cease to function.

Pete

You and Philip are correct if we are taking about private sector unions…I still think freezing out the TAXPAYER of the conversation of the public unions and employees serving the TAXPAYERS is not just.

 

[Pete2]

jlw:

You and Philip are correct if we are taking about private sector unions…I still think freezing out the TAXPAYER of the conversation of the public unions and employees serving the TAXPAYERS is not just.

Which unions are funded using taxpayers dollars? How much are they receiving in taxes?

Pete

 

[jlw]

Pete2:

Which unions are funded using taxpayers dollars? How much are they receiving in taxes?

Pete

Pete2, my friend, GOVERNMENT CAN’T EXIST without the private sector profiting, and therefore creating tax revenue. So it’s the taxpayers who pay for all government operations and the employees that carry them out. So the budgets for salaries, benefits, pensions, supplies, tools, R&D, marketing, etc are paid by YOU and ME. You and I are the employers of the officeholders of government, even the ones not elected by us, the bosses, the department heads, the UNION BOSSES, and their employees. How much taxes?? ALL OF IT!

 

[Pete2]

jlw:

Pete2, my friend, GOVERNMENT CAN’T EXIST without the private sector profiting, and therefore creating tax revenue. So it’s the taxpayers who pay for all government operations and the employees that carry them out. So the budgets for salaries, benefits, pensions, supplies, tools, R&D, marketing, etc are paid by YOU and ME. You and I are the employers of the officeholders of government, even the ones not elected by us, the bosses, the department heads, the UNION BOSSES, and their employees. How much taxes?? ALL OF IT!

JLW, unions are not agencies of the government, and are not funded by the government’s taxes that we pay. You know that, right? Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying… can you rephrase it?

Pete

 

[jlw]

Pete2:

JLW, unions are not agencies of the government, and are not funded by the government’s taxes that we pay. You know that, right? Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying… can you rephrase it?

Pete

Where does the money come from to fund public education, and therefore the adminisrators, teachers, and school board members running the show???

Where does the money come from to fund public transit??

Where does the money come from to fund public safety/defense??

Where does the money come from to fund medicare and medicaid??