Union membership

[RandBlade]

The Wisconsin thread has a lot going on so thought about seperating out a thread on what peoples views of unions are.

I think unions should be allowed, voluntarily at the choice of the individual.

* Membership of a union for a job should neither be banned, nor compulsory.
* Payments to a union should be made voluntarily - ie the union has its own subscription method, it should not come direct from an employees pay.
* Work conducted for a union (Rather than the employer) should be happen on the unions time, not on the employers time. Work conducted for the employer should happen on the employers time.
* Employers should conduct negotiations with whoever they choose - the union if they want, the workers (if they agree to it) directly if they want.
* People should be entitled to withold their labour (strike) if they want, but the employer should be free to replace them with somebody else more reliable if they want, potentially permanently.

[Nessus]

Agreed on everything but the last point. Especially untrained labour can not bargain for its due rights if it can be replaced at the whims of corporate fuck-faces. If you run an operation shitty enough to warrant striking, I don't think it's good for society that you can just trap even worse dregs into your servitude because they're so desperate they'd do anything for a buck.

[wiggin]

I don't know, Nessie. I was taught growing up never to cross a picket line, but I don't think there should be something legally wrong with it.

At the end of the day, these rules are about trying to create some sort of balance in the employer-employee power relationship. Obviously the individual employee (especially an unskilled one) has little power over a large corporation. But at the same time, management would have little power over their employees if a union could strike at will and the employers would be legally constrained from seeking alternatives.

A strike is extremely costly and inconvenient for an employer even if they do manage to replace all of the lost workers, and the PR damage can be significant and lasting. Giving the option of association (constitutionally protected IMO) coupled with the option of collective action is nicely balanced by at-will employment and strike breaking. That way, no one wants the normal relationship to break down, and every effort is made to solve disagreements through negotiation and mediation.

The problem with unions is that employees still have a very uneven power relationship with the union. Staying out of the union has significant downsides - both from the work environment, and from benefiting from collective action. But they also have little say on what a union leadership does once they do join. I honestly don't have a good solution for this problem; RB's proposed policies are reasonable and nice starts, but clearly there's still an imbalance there.

I also think a potential issue is that often the result of union-employer negotiations is a fairly universal wage system that leaves little possibility for rewarding exceptional employees (or terminating/punishing poor ones). This reduces the incentive for superlative work, and careful thought needs to go into how to best design negotiated wage structures.

*shrugs* It's a very sticky business and largely only useful for large numbers of relatively unskilled workers. But I think that in general rights should be balanced in such a manner that no one has an unduly coercive relationship over another.

[Nessus]

The thing is, once you're striking, you're losing wages each day. I would hope that any union wouldn't resort to that, given the misery they're executing on their members, without due cause. I concede the legislative portion of it, I don't know what kind of law would be sensible and not be mis-used somehow. I do believe in the 30's sort of scab-hunting, on principle.

Especially with unskilled labour, which as we both know today means customer service rather than mining, your only bargaining chip is your labour and two hands. If that can be trivialized and traded away as soon as you dare ask for more than sustenance, how can there ever be a level playing field?

[RandBlade]

What if its not bad enough to warrant striking which is why there's plenty more people wanting the job? If its not so bad they don't want to quit or risk losing their job and if they're so easily replaceable, why should they both refuse to work and refuse to allow someone else to work?

I think its worth noting that the customer service industry is the least unionised and least common for strikes of all anyway. I can't recall ever hearing of a strike by a food or beverage chain, or hairdressers or anything like that for example. Heavy industry, transport and public workforces are the most stereotypically common.

[Nessus]

Yeah man, what if.

[RandBlade]

Classy response. Not sure if you saw my editted in second paragraph either.

[Nessus]

I'm classy with classy people.

What if (ha ha) service industry people don't have much of a history of labour struggle as they came to the foreground at a time when unions were already so stigmatized and assaulted by right-wing demagogues that organizing their labour was nigh impossible? We both know Wal-Mart and their like bust unions regularly to secure their CEOs bottom line, and you cry when my responses to your baiting aren't classy enough?

[Aimless]

What if its not bad enough to warrant striking which is why there's plenty more people wanting the job?

This makes even less sense than the term "relative poverty". It's better to be peed on than pooped on, but being peed on generally sucks and most of us don't live in places or work in areas where people HAVE to be peed on for things to work. Ie. shitty working conditions and terms aren't always necessary and strikes are (among other things) a way to help employers consider improving shitty conditions that they may very well improve without going under.

I think its worth noting that the customer service industry is the least unionised and least common for strikes of all anyway. I can't recall ever hearing of a strike by a food or beverage chain, or hairdressers or anything like that for example. Heavy industry, transport and public workforces are the most stereotypically common.

How do you explain that btw?

[Nessus]

Minx

you and me are like this

And Randy is like this

[Aimless]

I think you mean This, Randy should be both Italic and capitalised due to his business as well as his ideology.

[Flixy]

The Wisconsin thread has a lot going on so thought about seperating out a thread on what peoples views of unions are.

I think unions should be allowed, voluntarily at the choice of the individual.

* Membership of a union for a job should neither be banned, nor compulsory.
* Payments to a union should be made voluntarily - ie the union has its own subscription method, it should not come direct from an employees pay.
* Work conducted for a union (Rather than the employer) should be happen on the unions time, not on the employers time. Work conducted for the employer should happen on the employers time.
* Employers should conduct negotiations with whoever they choose - the union if they want, the workers (if they agree to it) directly if they want.
* People should be entitled to withold their labour (strike) if they want, but the employer should be free to replace them with somebody else more reliable if they want, potentially permanently.

Agreed, though I also have my reservations for the last one.

What if its not bad enough to warrant striking which is why there's plenty more people wanting the job? If its not so bad they don't want to quit or risk losing their job and if they're so easily replaceable, why should they both refuse to work and refuse to allow someone else to work?

I think its worth noting that the customer service industry is the least unionised and least common for strikes of all anyway. I can't recall ever hearing of a strike by a food or beverage chain, or hairdressers or anything like that for example. Heavy industry, transport and public workforces are the most stereotypically common.

Teachers strike at times (not often, but no one strikes often here at all) and they provide services.

I don't think a company would quickly fire alls triking employees though. It would be bad publicity, make them unpopular, and it's expensive because they'd have to pay severance packages or something to the ones they fire, and it takes time to hire new people so they are still days without workers, and new workers have no experience at the job yet and are therefore less productive.

Then again, if they can fire people who strike they might just as well do other actions harming a company (there's plenty of ways) that would not warrant mass layoffs.

[RandBlade]

This makes even less sense than the term "relative poverty". It's better to be peed on than pooped on, but being peed on generally sucks and most of us don't live in places or work in areas where people HAVE to be peed on for things to work. Ie. shitty working conditions and terms aren't always necessary and strikes are (among other things) a way to help employers consider improving shitty conditions that they may very well improve without going under.

If you consider your workplace "getting peed on" then get a new job . Or act on mass and force a change. But if others want that job, why should they be prevented to have it if you don't?

How do you explain that btw?

Unlike Nessie, I think its because most who work in that industry don't consider a union to be necessary.

Unions in the past played a very important and positive role. They helped build safety standards in heavy industry, minimum standards from sweatshops etc but none of those conditions exist anymore. Where its legacy, union membership is declining, where its not legacy people aren't going out of their way to create it.

The irony is that unions have been made redundant from their own success. What was once campaigned for by striking, is now set by law anyway. So the most common strikes now are in those industries that have a history of it, but not a necessity for it.

I think you mean This, Randy should be both Italic and capitalised due to his business as well as his ideology.

I don't discuss (besides minor remarks) my business and don't go into detailed specifics deliberately, so not sure what you mean by that.

Agreed, though I also have my reservations for the last one.
Teachers strike at times (not often, but no one strikes often here at all) and they provide services.

Yes, I was counting teachers in the public sector.

I don't think a company would quickly fire alls triking employees though. It would be bad publicity, make them unpopular, and it's expensive because they'd have to pay severance packages or something to the ones they fire, and it takes time to hire new people so they are still days without workers, and new workers have no experience at the job yet and are therefore less productive.

Absolutely, it would be the "nuclear" option and not one taken too lightly. It should be an option though.

[wiggin]

The thing is, once you're striking, you're losing wages each day. I would hope that any union wouldn't resort to that, given the misery they're executing on their members, without due cause. I concede the legislative portion of it, I don't know what kind of law would be sensible and not be mis-used somehow. I do believe in the 30's sort of scab-hunting, on principle.

As long as you don't want to legislate anything, by all means.

Especially with unskilled labour, which as we both know today means customer service rather than mining, your only bargaining chip is your labour and two hands. If that can be trivialized and traded away as soon as you dare ask for more than sustenance, how can there ever be a level playing field?

Collective bargaining gives them a lot more power. It's hard to replace thousands of workers at the drop of a hat, especially given the PR problems and such.

The bigger problem is that if it's easy to find thousands more workers at the same or lower wages, then it means the labor market has some issues; giving unions more power is not going to fix those problems.

[rumrunner]

If you consider your workplace "getting peed on" then get a new job . Or act on mass and force a change.

Wouldn't this be "collective bargaining"? Kind of like forming a union?

But if others want that job, why should they be prevented to have it if you don't?

So, if the employer fails to create a safe (as reasonably possible) workplace, we should allow some other idiot risk his life and limbs for the company's bottom line? If the employer wants to take advantage of the desperate means in which his pool of workers comes from we should turn a blind eye to it and put ourselves out of work allowing the company to take advantage of someone else? It's called speaking against injustice, not quitting your job.

[Veldan Rath]

Unions make places safe now?

They may have in the past, but that is not their focus now as we have the legislatures addressing those issues.

[Flixy]

Unions in the past played a very important and positive role. They helped build safety standards in heavy industry, minimum standards from sweatshops etc but none of those conditions exist anymore. Where its legacy, union membership is declining, where its not legacy people aren't going out of their way to create it.

The irony is that unions have been made redundant from their own success. What was once campaigned for by striking, is now set by law anyway. So the most common strikes now are in those industries that have a history of it, but not a necessity for it.

I'd say besides the collective bargaining (which I think in principle is a good thing), and lobbying with the government to represent the interests of employees (employers also lobby, so that's fair, and this is institutionalized here in the social economic council which includes both unions and employer unions) one big advantage is legal aid and advise for work conflicts.

So, if the employer fails to create a safe (as reasonably possible) workplace, we should allow some other idiot risk his life and limbs for the company's bottom line? If the employer wants to take advantage of the desperate means in which his pool of workers comes from we should turn a blind eye to it and put ourselves out of work allowing the company to take advantage of someone else? It's called speaking against injustice, not quitting your job.

If it's not safe, it's probably already illegal. Either way, if it is actually unsafe you can bring it to court (with legal aid provided by the union), and bring it to the political agenda (by means of the union).

Since I am still a student I am not exactly sure, but I think this is roughly how our unions work. And they're fairly reasonable too, I mean, they actually agreed on a higher raise of the retirement age than the government proposed at that time. They know there is a crisis and cuts have to be made, they just don't always agree on the how and where (and possibly when).

[GGT]

Unions make places safe now?

They may have in the past, but that is not their focus now as we have the legislatures addressing those issues.

According to what I've read in the news, WI police had to use their union and collective bargaining to get their bullet-proof vests.

[Hazir]

It is near impossible to have a meaningful debate on unions between people from the US/UK and other countries in Europe. The relations in the first two countries are way more adversarial than in countries like Holland, Germany and the likes. The competitive advantages Holland has are the result of deals between governments, industry organisations and unions.

[GGT]

It is near impossible to have a meaningful debate on unions between people from the US/UK and other countries in Europe. The relations in the first two countries are way more adversarial than in countries like Holland, Germany and the likes. The competitive advantages Holland has are the result of deals between governments, industry organisations and unions.

Some truth to that. The US has so many people that have adopted an attitude that government, taxes, and unions are always bad.

Does Holland allow strikes or walk-outs of essential services personnel like fire, police, nurses, air-traffic controllers?

[Hazir]

Public sector workers have the right to strike, unannounced strikes cause liability for the union that called it, and strikes can be prohibited on a case to case basis by the courts on the basis of gross imbalance between the aims of the strikers and the effects of the strike on the company and or third parties.

[Dreadnaught]

The thing is, once you're striking, you're losing wages each day. I would hope that any union wouldn't resort to that, given the misery they're executing on their members, without due cause. I concede the legislative portion of it, I don't know what kind of law would be sensible and not be mis-used somehow. I do believe in the 30's sort of scab-hunting, on principle.

Especially with unskilled labour, which as we both know today means customer service rather than mining, your only bargaining chip is your labour and two hands. If that can be trivialized and traded away as soon as you dare ask for more than sustenance, how can there ever be a level playing field?

But fundamentally why should unskilled labor be given a lot more to bargain with? Their power is in their knowledge of the workplace, whatever small training they got, cost of replacing new workers, etc.

And ultimately there is a going rate for that given work. If a call center's workers want to try and push that rate up, good luck to them. But what if they are trying to push it so high, it's significantly cheaper for the employer to hire all new people and train them? If you make it legally impossible for that balancing act to happen, you're creating an artificial price floor.

Collective bargaining is supposed to be about balancing the scales, not tipping them.

[Catgrrl]

My Dad is a picket crosser, and I'm thankful for it. He used to belong to the union at his work (voluntary membership) and when they went on strike in the '80s, the little bit of money that the union sets you up with during the strike was barely livable. We were going to lose our house (the strike ended up being a few weeks due to stubbornness on both sides) and so my Dad did the right thing and quit the union, crossed the line. He's still at the same job 33 years, and the union has never done a damn thing to help any of his coworkers that still belong to it. And they pay the dues faithfully, like churchgoers pay their tithe, to get really nothing more than my dad gets not being a member. Waste of money.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Banning unions would be one of the most idiotic thing we could do. It's a natural and logical counterbalance to a company, and companies that don't bend/give way to reasonable employee demands will find themselves with low skill level of employees, and ultimately uncompetitive. If we banned unions we would create a stark imbalance of power, it's like banning the right to peacable assemble for whatever cause. Sickening.

And they pay the dues faithfully, like churchgoers pay their tithe, to get really nothing more than my dad gets not being a member. Waste of money.

Dad was smart, did what was best for him, given his situation. I agree unions often start under a just banner, but over time power corrupts, and management changes. IT's a seperate skill to be noble person yourself, and to look into another person to see if they to can champion your cause in the spirit it was started in.

[Nessus]

But fundamentally why should unskilled labor be given a lot more to bargain with?

Fundamentally? They're human beings. That's worth far more than amalgamation and capital.

But that's just me.

Their power is in their knowledge of the workplace, whatever small training they got, cost of replacing new workers, etc.

This is joke, yes? You are doing the bullshit on me? If your power is the knowledge that can be bestowed on a 15-year-old in two hours of study, you have no power.

And ultimately there is a going rate for that given work. If a call center's workers want to try and push that rate up, good luck to them. But what if they are trying to push it so high, it's significantly cheaper for the employer to hire all new people and train them? If you make it legally impossible for that balancing act to happen, you're creating an artificial price floor.

Collective bargaining is supposed to be about balancing the scales, not tipping them.

And who says the going rate hasn't been run down by the employer side? It's all well and good to ask for moderation on both sides of the aisle, but it's not the single customer service worker who has been buying elections and electrifying the Republican party for decades. In a vacuum, sure, labour should be worth the hours put in. But there never has been that vacuum. There is only exploitation and merciless wage slavery.

[Dreadnaught]

You're not understanding my argument (and you're really underestimating unskilled labor). I'm not saying unions should be banned, I'm saying there should be no legal prohibition against companies choosing to ultimately reject a union's proposal, dismiss everyone and re-hire accordingly.

There are a lot of reasons why an employer would not want to do this, as well as a number of intermediary stages between a strike and this happening. But it should be as much of an option as private-sector unionization itself. Otherwise it's a pretty rigged game.

[Nessus]

I rarely understand what you're posting in general.

[Dreadnaught]

It's not hard to understand. People should be free to strike, but employers should be free to ultimately decide not to settle. Not letting someone walk away from an agreement is generally a no-no.

[LittleFuzzy]

but it's not the single customer service worker who has been buying elections and electrifying the (Democratic) party for decades.

No, that would be the unions.

[Nessus]

No, that would be the unions.

And have not the corporations and business tycoons availed themselves all the same to the opposing side? Is not the struggle in Wisconsin funded by certain corporate interests, seeking to bust unions once and for all? You think me a fool, perhaps with good reason, to not see this. That you expect our audience to view it in your terms, labels you lazy and them fools.