When is Catholic support for Unions counter productive?

[melensdad]

Its pretty well known that the Catholic Church supports workers rights, we have ministries that help organize workers, support unions, etc. Leaders of our Church often mention things like “living wages” and “fair wages” are necessary for social justice.

My question is at what point does support for “workers rights” become counter productive to those very workers?

For example, when farm workers organized it really did help workers, it didn’t seem to close down farms, and while food prices may have gone up, really it was not a bad thing overall.

But what about when a union drives up wages or benefits to a point that the employer is no longer able to compete? Under that circumstance the employer typically moves jobs offshore to a lower wage/lower benefit nation. At the point that unions make businesses uncompetitive SHOULD the Church, or DOES the Church then alter its position? After all if the Church supports the union to the point that the members lose their jobs is there actually any social justice?

I guess it strikes me that there must be a balance. The employers must be responsive to company stock holders and must return a ‘reasonable’ return on investment to stock holders. Most workers in unions and out of unions own stock in their IRA investments, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. So really the American people own these companies that move the jobs offshore when they become uncompetitive in the marketplace and the American people demand that the jobs be moved offshore because they vote with their $$$ and shop at Wal-Mart which does a great job of keeping prices very low.

Confused? Seems to me there is a limit somewhere with unions, does the Catholic Church have any guidelines on when it supports unions and when unions are asking for too much?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You have several questions which are wrapped in inferences. Some of these inferences are incorrect which complicates the ability to understand a correct answer.

Question one what is the church stance on unions? The church’s stance is people should treat each other as themselves, so exploiting workers is wrong. Simply put if workers are banding to reduce or stop exploitation then the church is in line with that action.

Does the church overly support unions? No, if workers are using the union to avoid work or exploit their employer then the workers are sinning and are not being supported by the church.

One common misconception is all people should be paid the same regardless of skill, effort, or success. This is not correct; we should require medical personnel to win an academic contest prior to medical training. Yet the oppose extreme which many propose the weak should have to win negotiations against the rich to receive a fair wage is also incorrect. As the church teaches fair wages should be a standard, not equal wages. Jobs unable to support fair wages should be openly known as part time employment.

Shopping at Wal-Mart does not move jobs off shore. Jobs move off shore when the productivity is to low. Here is an example a phone support engineer in the US may cost $30-$50/hr while and foreign engineer doing the same work may cost $20/hr so much of the work is outsourced.

 

[melensdad]

Texas Roofer, no my question was reasonably written.

The Church does have many ministries that help organize and support labor movements, the Church leaders support organized labor unions in many nations, you are confusing the Church with the Church leaders.

I never implied equal pay for equal worth, not sure why you inferred that?

Please go back and help answer my questions, not what you mistakenly think are my questions. I am very sincere in wanting the answers.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Its pretty well known that the Catholic Church supports workers rights, we have ministries that help organize workers, support unions, etc. Leaders of our Church often mention things like “living wages” and “fair wages” are necessary for social justice.

***My question is at what point does support for “workers rights” become counter productive to those very workers? ***

when the union workers exploit others

For example, when farm workers organized it really did help workers, it didn’t seem to close down farms, and while food prices may have gone up, really it was not a bad thing overall.

But what about when a union drives up wages or benefits to a point that the employer is no longer able to compete?

this can not happen in a free market. the market has to be restricted

Under that circumstance the employer typically moves jobs offshore to a lower wage/lower benefit nation. At the point that unions make businesses uncompetitive SHOULD the Church, or DOES the Church then alter its position?

one of the inference problems is asking the Church to alter their elusive stand. The church position needs understood not altered

… After all if the Church supports the union to the point that the members lose their jobs is there actually any social justice?

After all the church does not support this action

I guess it strikes me that there must be a balance. The employers must be responsive to company stock holders and must return a ‘reasonable’ return on investment to stock holders. Most workers in unions and out of unions own stock in their IRA investments, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. So really the American people own these **companies that move the jobs **offshore when they become uncompetitive in the marketplace and the **American people demand **that the jobs be moved offshore because they vote with their $$$ and shop at Wal-Mart which does a great job of keeping prices very low.

Confused? … Seems to me there is a limit somewhere with unions, does the Catholic Church have any guidelines on when it supports unions and when unions are asking for too much?

Yes

 

[Newbie2]

Look at the auto worker’s unions:

1. Corruption to the nth degree.
2. Bankrupting the big 3
3. Forced contributions to a political party.
4. Selling out retirees and new hires for the sake of the
   existing workers.

When greed replaces concern for abuse of workers, that defines counterproductive.

 

[Maxply]

Texas Roofer (who I recall is libertarian) has it right here: the Church has never been unquestioningly pro-Union. It also calls upon workers to work hard, to work to help their employer, and so on.

The problem is the playing field itself keeps changing. There has never been truly free trade, and our national policies open our economy up to nations such as China which have an advantage in low labor costs and which ALSO manipulate currency, etc. to further harm us. (I would think China would be satisfied just by being able to use its low labor cost advantage without the extra ding, but unfortunately the post-Cold War world is all about strategic national economic rivalries, even though the U.S. won’t face up to it).

In the end, I think most people in the U.S. feel that unions have done many positive things. . . but that some of their practices need real correction, especially those boners people talk about over dinner parties.

 

[cynic]

But what about when a union drives up wages or benefits to a point that the employer is no longer able to compete? Under that circumstance the employer typically moves jobs offshore to a lower wage/lower benefit nation. ?

Even if a union were to force wages up to a minimum liveable level for workers, business can still make the argument that this isn’t competitive, since it will always be possible to pay workers in third world countries far, far less.

 

[Trader]

This issue tends to reflect political opinion much more than the actual teaching of the Church.

Church teaching is balanced, but when do we hear about the duty of workers to do a fair day’s work for their wages?

What of the duty of the worker to prepare himself with education and training to do work that will support a family?

What about the freedom of workers to decline union membership?

How would our bishops respond to Catholic school teachers being represented by the same unions that have helped to destroy public schools?

PS: I did say HELPED. I know the teachers unions are not the only problem, or even the biggest problem. That title would go to negligent parents.

 

[melensdad]

Even if a union were to force wages up to a minimum liveable level for workers, business can still make the argument that this isn’t competitive, since it will always be possible to pay workers in third world countries far, far less.

Not so in every industry. Look at the farm workers movement, Catholics were very helpful with organizing farm workers, we still buy our own produce, and we are happy to do so.

This issue tends to reflect political opinion much more than the actual teaching of the Church.

Church teaching is balanced, but when do we hear about the duty of workers to do a fair day’s work for their wages?

What of the duty of the worker to prepare himself with education and training to do work that will support a family?

What about the freedom of workers to decline union membership?

How would our bishops respond to Catholic school teachers being represented by the same unions that have helped to destroy public schools?

PS: I did say HELPED. I know the teachers unions are not the only problem, or even the biggest problem. That title would go to negligent parents.

I would agree with you that the Church teachings are balanced. Would you agree with me that some of the Catholic activists, up to the level of Bishops, may push beyond the Catholic teaching?

I have no problem with unions bargaining for ‘fair’ treatment, or safety issues. But it seems to me when a union becomes so strong that it effectively shuts down industry (as it did with the steel industry in the 1960s and 1970’s) while also lobbying and getting ‘protectionist’ policies which, combined help to lead to the collapse of the entire industry. The auto makers faced a similar problem, and had management issue too, but our Big 3 really aren’t any more.

With the continued ‘globalization’ of the world economy, unions can’t really push too because if prices of good climb, management is forced to find a way to make it cheaper. We all vote with our pocketbooks and I don’t see people in stores volunteering to pay and extra $10 for anything. Price became king at some point, and I wonder how the Catholic Church will adapt its union support, or if it will continue to support a union until the union forces the plant to close?

 

[Trader]

Not so in every industry. Look at the farm workers movement, Catholics were very helpful with organizing farm workers, we still buy our own produce, and we are happy to do so.

I would agree with you that the Church teachings are balanced. Would you agree with me that some of the Catholic activists, up to the level of Bishops, may push beyond the Catholic teaching?

I have no problem with unions bargaining for ‘fair’ treatment, or safety issues. But it seems to me when a union becomes so strong that it effectively shuts down industry (as it did with the steel industry in the 1960s and 1970’s) while also lobbying and getting ‘protectionist’ policies which, combined help to lead to the collapse of the entire industry. The auto makers faced a similar problem, and had management issue too, but our Big 3 really aren’t any more.

With the continued ‘globalization’ of the world economy, unions can’t really push too because if prices of good climb, management is forced to find a way to make it cheaper. We all vote with our pocketbooks and I don’t see people in stores volunteering to pay and extra $10 for anything. Price became king at some point, and I wonder how the Catholic Church will adapt its union support, or if it will continue to support a union until the union forces the plant to close?

I think people see the world with their own cultural biases, and that these biases can be stronger than what their faith actually teaches. Almost all of our bishops are old. Many grew up in working class families and heard from their families about the struggle as we changed from an agricultural to industrial society. They tend to side with those in need without regard to why they are in need. As a former seminarian, I believe very strongly that our clergy have little understanding of economics.

I do believe that everyone has the right and duty to bargain for economic justice in their own circumstances. They can do that as individuals or collectively if that is their choice. They even have the freedom to make foolish choices sometimes, but they should also accept the consequences of their own choices. Who benefits when the UAW bargains for the right of their members to smoke on the assembly lines? What happens when retailers in Michigan are forced to attach a price sticker to every individual item on the shelf decades after the introduction of bar codes and scanners?

Neither unions nor management possess a monopoly on stupidity and greed. For many years I worked in the steel industry. I worked for companies that converted rod into wire and our biggest customers were fastener manufacturers. In the early 70’s we began to import a small amount of our rod from German companies. At that time American steel workers earned about $22 per hour, with the Japanese at $12 and the Koreans at $2, all including benefits. The brilliant steel executives realized that this put them at a competitive disadvantage. Rather than invest in productivity enhancements or develop new and better products, they decided to go to Congress and get quotas set for imported rod to protect their existing product mix. Since foreign steel makers were not so inept, they developed their own domestic fastener industry using that same labor advantage. American steelmakers got their quotas, but that very action helped put their own customers out of business. Today very few standard fasteners are made in the US. The industry survivors are the ones who developed new and better products. The American steel industry now employs only a fraction of the workers from the 70’s and many of those companies have gone through bankruptcy.

 

[ChadS]

Look at the auto worker’s unions:

1. Corruption to the nth degree.
2. Bankrupting the big 3
3. Forced contributions to a political party.
4. Selling out retirees and new hires for the sake of the
   existing workers.

When greed replaces concern for abuse of workers, that defines counterproductive.

This strikes me as incredibly simplistic to lay primary blame for the collapse of the American auto industry at the feet of organized labor. What proof is there that the UAW bankrupted the Big 3? Could it possibly be that the Big 3 never bothered to change production methods or look for ways to cut costs until the Japanese autos had so penetrated the American market that any catch up was little too late?

I know in the American steel industry after World War II they enjoyed a period of competition free dominance of the world market. Up through the 1960s and 1970s the American steel industry was using technology that had changed little since the early 1900s. By the time Japan and Germany began producing steel in the 1950s they were using technology that could produce twice as much better quality steel in half the time. By the time the U.S. industry even realized what was happening it was entirely too late.

I think the failure of American industries can be laid largely at the feet of the coroporations themselves. They kept outdated business models and modes of operation that were not suited for a post-WW2 world.

So to blame unions for industrial collapse is nothing but corporate propaganda and basically blames the victim (the workers) for industrial decline.

ChadS

 

[Newbie2]

This strikes me as incredibly simplistic to lay primary blame for the collapse of the American auto industry at the feet of organized labor. What proof is there that the UAW bankrupted the Big 3? Could it possibly be that the Big 3 never bothered to change production methods or look for ways to cut costs until the Japanese autos had so penetrated the American market that any catch up was little too late?

I think the failure of American industries can be laid largely at the feet of the coroporations themselves. They kept outdated business models and modes of operation that were not suited for a post-WW2 world.

So to blame unions for industrial collapse is nothing but corporate propaganda and basically blames the victim (the workers) for industrial decline.

ChadS

Yes, it is a bit simplistic, and the Big 3 management is responsible, in part, for their decline (See the Pontiac Aztec, for example ) Victims? Like white-collar workers aren’t losing their jobs as well?

My point is that now that they’re in big trouble, the automotive unions are willing to do two things, which in response to the OP are counterproductive:

1. Selling out their retirees to preserve the financial security of the currently employed workers.
2. Not willing to take cuts for their current workers, forcing layoffs for newer workers i.e. vehemently defending the “entitlement mentality”.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not defending the management for the Big 3’s downfall. Regardless of who’s at fault for getting them to this point (Methinks both labor and management are responsible), labor leaders aren’t responding in a reasonable manner…both for the health of the companies in which they’re employed, jeopardizing all their jobs and for the retired union force, which depend on promises made by the unions which are being broken.

 

[ChadS]

Yes, it is a bit simplistic, and the Big 3 management is responsible, in part, for their decline (See the Pontiac Aztec, for example ) Victims? Like white-collar workers aren’t losing their jobs as well?

My point is that now that they’re in big trouble, the automotive unions are willing to do two things, which in response to the OP are counterproductive:

1. Selling out their retirees to preserve the financial security of the currently employed workers.
2. Not willing to take cuts for their current workers, forcing layoffs for newer workers i.e. vehemently defending the “entitlement mentality”.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not defending the management for the Big 3’s downfall. Regardless of who’s at fault for getting them to this point (Methinks both labor and management are responsible), labor leaders aren’t responding in a reasonable manner…both for the health of the companies in which they’re employed, jeopardizing all their jobs and for the retired union force, which depend on promises made by the unions which are being broken.

I’d definitely say that non-union white collar workers have definitely been victims in this whole thing also. Often they lack even the rudimentary of job protections that unions offer and so are sometimes the first to go or the first to suffer setbacks in benefits, pay and pensions. There really isn’t anybody to speak for them.

There is plenty of blame to spread around in the labor/management issue. Labor leaders can be just as short sighted and unaware of global trends as their management counterparts. Unfortunately labor leaders are forced to pick and choose who to protect and who to sacrifice during negotiations. Somebody always gets hurt. If labor tried to protect to vociferously everybody the corp. could either shut the plant down or protracted discussions would hurt everybody.

Also, if labor really wanted to make a point they’d have to act militantly and the American worker is not primed for that type of action…so things just go on the way they have been for the last 35 years.

The trucker diesel protests are a good example of this. Over the summer they were infuriated at diesel prices and some of them made convoys or briefly held up traffic. But what’ve really sent a message is if all truckers, regardless of deadline and what they were hauling, pulled over until something was done. That would’ve gotten a lot of people’s attention if food sat along side a road rotting or places ran out of things to sale. But as one organizer said he wanted truckers to support their cause if they didn’t have a deadline or load to meet or haul. The reason strikes work is because workers withold a service to employers that eventually affects customers. How is the average non-trucker supposed to sympathize with truckers if the supemarkets are stocked full and they can still buy new shoes and that flat screen tv they wanted?

Protests like that aren’t pretty and aren’t always comfortable but it’s one way to draw attention to your cause and plight.

I’ve rambled on too much.

ChadS