Unions

[Canuck]

A major part of my job has been working in management jobs with union and non-union workforces (including negotiation of labor agreements), as well as working on union campaigns on behalf of management. A couple of points on this interesting discussion:

1. It is unlikely that Tesla will be organized.

As others have noted, Elon (and Tesla) would be foolish to say anything negative about unions or unionization. That said, there is no individual employer that would prefer a unionized workforce in this day and age -- it reduces an employer's ability to manage his workforce as he wishes, and every dime that goes towards union dues has to be made up to employees somehow, so at a minimum it will cost a little bit of money (and often a lot more than that). So, as an employer you are basically guaranteed to lose at least some (and perhaps a lot) of flexibility, and increase your labor costs without any net benefit (such as additional hours worked or employees). Not a recipe for success.

Tesla, like most Silicon Valley companies, treats its employees like a resource, not an expense, and tries to keep them (generally) happy. This is important -- almost all successful unionization efforts occur when employees are dissatisfied with management, are treated unfairly, are fired capriciously and arbitrarily, and do not buy into management's strategy (surprisingly, low pay is generally not a reason that people want to vote in a union). Treating employees with respect, and being consistent with ones words and actions as management, is the easiest way to avoid a union campaign. This is among the main reasons the Valley has stayed union free for so long.

Everything we have seen and heard about Tesla is that it's a great place to work, and does all of the "right" things for its employees. I expect that they have fairly low turnover, relative to many other similar workplaces. In those circumstances, most employees are going to wonder why they would benefit from paying union dues -- what exactly are they expecting to get from management with a (paid) third party representing them that they aren't getting today? Is there a cheaper alternative for them to pursue to get those things, and is it realistic that management would listen to them if they came forward with such requests? These are generally the issues that drive a union campaign, and I think Tesla is probably doing what it needs to from a management perspective to win such a campaign, if one were ever to occur.

2. It would be much better overall for the economy, and US society as a whole, if a much higher percentage of private sector employees were unionized.

Many of the arguments here, especially between the European model vs. US, have to do with policy issues around unionization as a whole. The percentage of unionized workers in the private sector in the US has steadily declined from the 1960s to today, and is now less than 10% (public sector unions are a completely different animal, as explained by many others before). This is one of many reasons that income inequality has risen dramatically in the US in the last thirty years. As a matter of public policy, it is hard to unionize and stay unionized, and individual employers would be foolish to willingly become union while their competitors in whatever industry they are in stay union free. However, if an entire industry is union, then that advantage disappears, and with all things being equal, we'd be better off as a society (and economy) as a whole if workers on the bottom rung of many industries were paid more and got better benefits such that they could spend more and drive our economy forward.

This is a tragedy of the commons situation, because no employer (or industry, for that matter) would or should voluntarily come forward to increase its costs and reduce its flexibility. But if it were to happen across the board, most companies could see the obvious advantage to the overall economy of having increased unionization throughout the country. Unfortunately, it is not remotely possible that the labor laws will change in the foreseeable future -- the unions made a fairly strong push in 2009 with overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made it much easier to unionize workplaces, and it never even got close to a vote. So we are now probably stuck where we are, but unionizing a relatively small employer like Tesla isn't going to change all of the societal issues with the loss of union jobs in the US, and I would strongly encourage Tesla to stay union free until/unless conditions change dramatically in the US in the next several years, and to continue to treat its employees as valuable resources and maintain an excellent and consistent corporate culture that encourage collaboration and collegiality such that there is no incentive for employees to seek third party representation.

That's interesting and well reasoned. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. But your post should be here:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...e-with-Tesla-(SFGate-com)?p=542992#post542992

I, along with some other culprits, hijacked this thread.

 

[brianman]

(1) The percentage of unionized workers in the private sector in the US has steadily declined from the 1960s to today, and is now less than 10% (public sector unions are a completely different animal, as explained by many others before). (2) This is one of many reasons that income inequality has risen dramatically in the US in the last thirty years....
(3) However, if an entire industry is union, then that advantage disappears, and with all things being equal, we'd be better off as a society (and economy) as a whole if workers on the bottom rung of many industries were paid more and got better benefits such that they could spend more and drive our economy forward.

(1) You're assuming that's a bad thing, many of us do not. Also, you didn't go into the reasons why. I might find that interesting if you have links.
(2) If everyone was paid identically (except, of course, union bosses) then yes income inequality would be diminished because everyone would get paid horribly regardless of skills, work ethic, value as a productive employee, etc. Also, you imply here that "income inequality" is a bad thing by definition; I reject this assumption completely.
(3) Completely disagree. If everyone's paid the same, the price goes down or the companies go bankrupt (or get subsidized by the government so that they "survive"). Essentially "industrial unionization" or "sector unionization" (IMO) is another form of government and/or monopoly, and is sometimes -- scarily -- multi-national/global making it even more dangerous. Why do we have anti-monopoly laws? Would we not need anti-union-monopoly laws for similar reasons?

 

[BobHodgen]

I'm probably one of the few Tesla owners who's a Union member. I'm proud to be Union, and I'm proud to have been on strike. I strongly feel that labor has the fundamental right to organize.

Over the last 30 years Union membership has declined while the middle class is in danger of extinction. Worker productivity has increased while wages have stagnated. All the gains have been at the top and income inequality in America is at third world levels.

Believe me, nobody in a Union wants to kill the goose who laid the golden egg. We want workers to be treated fairly, earn a living wage, and be able to put something away for retirement.

Does Tesla need to be Unionized? Only the workers at Tesla can make that decision. If they think they're being treated fairly they'll likely vote no. The Tesla employees I've met all seem happy to be there and dedicated to the success of the company.

 

[NoMoGas]

(1) You're assuming that's a bad thing, many of us do not. Also, you didn't go into the reasons why. I might find that interesting if you have links.
(2) If everyone was paid identically (except, of course, union bosses) then yes income inequality would be diminished because everyone would get paid horribly regardless of skills, work ethic, value as a productive employee, etc. Also, you imply here that "income inequality" is a bad thing by definition; I reject this assumption completely.
(3) Completely disagree. If everyone's paid the same, the price goes down or the companies go bankrupt (or get subsidized by the government so that they "survive"). Essentially "industrial unionization" or "sector unionization" (IMO) is another form of government and/or monopoly, and is sometimes -- scarily -- multi-national/global making it even more dangerous. Why do we have anti-monopoly laws? Would we not need anti-union-monopoly laws for similar reasons?

1) It's a horrible thing because you can track the decline of the middle class whose trend line follows labor unions decline almost perfectly.
2) Who said anything about being paid the same? (Nice hit on "union bosses" as if corporate bosses aren't paid EXORBITANTLY more then the workers who but their tail all week for peanuts.
3) So in your world, Corporations should run free and workers should have no voice against them. While corporation lobbied and got passed legislation that shipped MILLIONS of jobs overseas, fights every regulation to keep our air clean, fights any attempt to raise the minimum wage,fights safety regulations... I could go on all night. One need look no further then the Koch brothers to understand why we need labor unions. 2 Billionaires have more political sway using dozens of their own manufactured groups that back up their own '"arguments" that then get regurgitated on right wing media as fact... Gets pretty maddening to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm probably one of the few Tesla owners who's a Union member. I'm proud to be Union, and I'm proud to have been on strike. I strongly feel that labor has the fundamental right to organize.

Over the last 30 years Union membership has declined while the middle class is in danger of extinction. Worker productivity has increased while wages have stagnated. All the gains have been at the top and income inequality in America is at third world levels.

Believe me, nobody in a Union wants to kill the goose who laid the golden egg. We want workers to be treated fairly, earn a living wage, and be able to put something away for retirement.

Does Tesla need to be Unionized? Only the workers at Tesla can make that decision. If they think they're being treated fairly they'll likely vote no. The Tesla employees I've met all seem happy to be there and dedicated to the success of the company.

Amen brother.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

After Elsupreme’s, Arnold Panz’s, Bob Hodgen’s and NoMoGas's posts I’m ‘officially back’ from neutrality, and in the pro-union camp.

…/ There are plenty of laws to protect workers. Unions were once needed, but are now just a relic of the past...

It is just my opinion...

And others have expressed the same opinion in various posts in this thread. I previously pointed at Ryanair as a good case study. Here’s another one:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013

Pentagon Study Finds 26,000 Military Sexual Assaults Last Year, Over 70 Sex Crimes Per Day

A shocking new report by the Pentagon has found that 70 sexual assaults may be taking place within the U.S. military every day. The report estimates there were 26,000 sex crimes committed in 2012, a jump of 37 percent since 2010. Most of the incidents were never reported. The findings were released two days after the head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention unit, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, was arrested for sexual assault. [...

Source: Pentagon Study Finds 26,000 Military Sexual Assaults Last Year, Over 70 Sex Crimes Per Day | Democracy Now!

Additional links:

Addressing the Epidemic of Military Sexual Assault | Democracy Now!

Senate Faces Historic Vote on Handling Military Sexually Assault Epidemic Outside Chain of Command | Democracy Now!


Additional reason for Editing: Corrected a careless mistake.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

…/ And, even if a union is not ‘needed’ at the Fremont plant, there is also a bigger picture. It’s also about solidarity with other workers. Workers in other auto plants, and ultimately it’s about solidarity with all workers, regardless if they’re inside US borders, or outside of them. Not all workers have the right to organize. If you have that right, then would you like to pay a small amount of your paycheck in order to be somewhat instrumental in trying to bring change so that other also get the right to organize? /…

I think it is up to the workers at the Fremont plant to decide what they want to do for themselves. [1] They are not responsible for 'solidarity with other workers'.

Let me ask you this ... [2] do you make sure that every single thing you buy has been made in a union shop? Nothing made in China? Because if you're wearing some article of clothing from Nike/The Gap/Old Navy or using just about any technology product or not shopping from local farmers for your food, I guarantee that 'solidarity with other workers' has gone right out the window.

We each do what we can. But we cannot hold a group of people in Fremont responsible for every auto worker worldwide, when we ourselves don't follow the same guidelines.

Fair?

[1] Isn’t that also up to the workers at the Fremont plant to decide?

[2] As much as my economy allows I try to use my ‘consumer power’ as responsible as possible. But do you really think what you’re asking is reasonably or fair? Is there any personal computer with the exception of the newly launched Mac Pro that isn’t made in China? Wouldn’t that mean that I would be unable to use a computer if I should live by the ‘set of rules’ you seem to be suggesting. Nor would I be able to use mobile phone or a laser printer. I do what I can. For example:

a) When shopping for an external screen – since my MacBook Pro only has a 13-inch screen – I used this guide:

Guide to Greener Electronics | Greenpeace International

At that time HP shared the ‘first place’. So I bought the smallest 2 MP LED-screen in their lineup – a 21,5 inch.


b) The latest jeans I bought were manufactured in Italy. From this company:

Nudie Jeans | The Naked Truth About Denim

Now sure, that doesn’t tell me where and under which circumstances the cotton was grown, or if the cotton indeed was 100% organic as they claim it was:

100% organic cotton | Nudie Jeans


The point is this: It is virtually impossible to follow ones principles – if you claim to have them in the first place that is – in every decision in this world as it currently is.

But does that mean that I or anyone else should be disqualified from pointing out ways to make improvements?


- - - - *Updated* [Not part of reply to Bonnie] - - - -

More on the role of unions in the 21st century. I watched it yesterday, so now I don’t remember if there’s anything in it that’s would be new info in this thread. But perhaps someone can find it useful.

It deals with the statement that “Unions are no longer necessary in the 21st century.”

 

[bonnie]

We're in agreement that it's 'up to the workers in Fremont to decide'. That was my point. I feel it's unfair to expect them to take on any role they don't want to take on.

Regarding the video - it's too early and I don't have enough coffee, but a couple of things I'd like to say. First, from a personal standpoint, I still see a role for unions in the public sector (not private). Personal opinion, some here may or may not agree with me. That wasn't addressed. Also while talking about workers with lost wages and laws not implemented, the speaker carefully stayed away from the US - there are not only laws in place to prevent things like that from happening, there are penalties for employers & there are agencies tasked with ensuring that cannot happen. Regarding workplace safety, the US has agencies such as OSHA that visit worksites. I know this for a fact, have hosted them on a mine site where I used to work.

I think some of the disagreement is that we're not all speaking from the same set of understanding. 'Union' means different things in different parts of the world. You were surprised to learn that in the US, employees are forced to pay union dues at a unionized plant, whether or not they want to be part of the union. (I was surprised to learn it wasn't that way somewhere else.) Others might make the assumption that without unions, worker safety would be ignored, not knowing that there is a safety net in place for that. Same for wages, vacation pay, benefits, etc.

I suspect much of the argument is over things unspoken, thinking we're operating on the same facts. I don't think anyone on this board feels workers should not earn a fair wage for the work they do. I think everyone here feels that workers should work in a safe environment and have opportunity for advancement as a result of the work they contribute. I think many in the US have seen union management protect people who should have been fired under any reasonable standard, have forced strikes when people didn't want to strike, and have hurt companies instead of finding resolution. So that's the pushback you're seeing. (Don't you think it's odd that UAW decided to come to Fremont to try to unionize the plant, a plant with plenty of workers familiar with the union already, workers that didn't invite the UAW in?)

Personally I find the concept of unions a great thing. But what I have personally seen implemented here in the US private sector has not been such a great thing. It has the stink of power and I can only wonder 'who protects the workers from the union management'?

 

[Arnold Panz]

(1) You're assuming that's a bad thing, many of us do not. Also, you didn't go into the reasons why. I might find that interesting if you have links.
(2) If everyone was paid identically (except, of course, union bosses) then yes income inequality would be diminished because everyone would get paid horribly regardless of skills, work ethic, value as a productive employee, etc. Also, you imply here that "income inequality" is a bad thing by definition; I reject this assumption completely.
(3) Completely disagree. If everyone's paid the same, the price goes down or the companies go bankrupt (or get subsidized by the government so that they "survive"). Essentially "industrial unionization" or "sector unionization" (IMO) is another form of government and/or monopoly, and is sometimes -- scarily -- multi-national/global making it even more dangerous. Why do we have anti-monopoly laws? Would we not need anti-union-monopoly laws for similar reasons?

The reasons for the decline of private sector unionization are too varied and complex to get into here, and there's far from any consensus on those reasons. I didn't mean to imply that income inequality is inherently a bad thing, but rather that the continued rise of income within the top quartile in the US, while the remaining quartiles have remained flat or decreased relative to inflation has not been good the economy (or, conversely, is what made our economy so healthy in the 1950s and 1960s). Here is a good chart showing this from the Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729

I completely agree that forced unionization would be bad, and was not advocating for it. Rather, the unequal bargaining power between labor and management in non-union environments has led to a "race to the bottom" in terms of wages, and that has hurt the overall economy because consumers have less to spend, and also has hurt the companies in those industries who remained unionized. For an example of the former, Henry Ford raised his employee's wages because he wanted all of his employees to be able to afford a Model T. Extrapolate this out through all consumer products and it is a rough explanation for why, from a macroeconomic perspective, higher incomes across the board (to a point) are better for the overall economy, even if it hurts profits in the short run. The basic tenet of macroeconomics is that my spending is your income, and vice versa.

On the latter point, think of the auto industry pre-2008. American (unionized) car companies are paying 3x for labor than their foreign (non-union) competitors (Toyota, Honda etc.) (n.b., non-union in their U.S. manufacturing facilities). There was a great statistic from the early 2000s where for each GM car that was sold, the first $XXXX went to retiree health care. It's a major advantage for the non-union companies to not have to deal with that at all, nor with the higher costs generally of those union contracts. They can use that money for R&D, marketing etc., which just helps them widen the advantage over time.

I don't advocate forcing the non-union companies to have to accept the same terms and conditions of employment as the other companies, but it's an asymmetrical issue that in part created the bankruptcies that the US companies eventually faced (n.b., I recognize all of the myriad mistakes that management at these companies made, but the high labor costs were a huge weight around their shoulders, however they got there).

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

@Bonnie

This isn’t a reply to your latest post.

I just wanted to clarify that the YouTube video was meant as a stand alone post, and thus not specifically directed at you, or as a part of my reply to you. The forum software did one of those “Updated”-edits and piled on at the bottom of my last post since not ‘enough’ time had elapsed since my previous post.

 

[Arnold Panz]

Believe me, nobody in a Union wants to kill the goose who laid the golden egg. We want workers to be treated fairly, earn a living wage, and be able to put something away for retirement.

Bob, I have sat across from several union officials and employees of my clients and heard them tell me that they hope my client's company goes out of business. Unfortunately, not all union members (or union officials) act rationally. Those that do, and recognize the need to work with management and help their business grow and thrive, generally do well (UPS is a good example of this). I've seen too many examples of the opposite behavior to not assume everyone's best intentions in these matters.

An example -- post-2008, as part of the auto bailout, the UAW had to agree to some significant concessions, which were still quite favorable relative to most of the other creditors in the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler. The contract was strongly supported by UAW management (to its credit). Basically, without this deal, the companies would have been dead. The vote was 53-47% in favor. Essentially, that means 47% of the membership voted to kill their own jobs (and all of the ancillary jobs at the parts manufacturers etc.). There were many reasons for their "no" votes, but bottom line is that because of bad history and bad information and other various reasons, people don't always vote in rational ways.

 

[bonnie]

@Bonnie

This isn’t a reply to your latest post.

I just wanted to clarify that the YouTube video was meant as a stand alone post, and thus not specifically directed at you, or as a part of my reply to you. The forum software did one of those “Updated”-edits and piled on at the bottom of my last post since not ‘enough’ time had elapsed since my previous post.

No worries. I didn't take it that way.

 

[Arnold Panz]

You were surprised to learn that in the US, employees are forced to pay union dues at a unionized plant, whether or not they want to be part of the union. (I was surprised to learn it wasn't that way somewhere else.)

Bonnie, just as a point of clarification, this is not true in all states. Many states have "Right to Work" laws, which basically entitle employees to work in unionized workplaces and not pay union dues (California is not RTW). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

That's why almost all of the foreign car companies put their plants in states like Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina etc., because most of the South and parts of the west are RTW. It's significantly more difficult to unionize in a RTW state because employees who want the union are rightly fearful of a freeloader problem of people not paying dues but taking advantage of the contract paid for by those who pay dues. It's an extremely effective tool used by management to prevent or discourage unionization. Boeing just used the threat of South Carolina to get the Machinists to agree to major concessions to build the 787x in Seattle.

 

[bonnie]

Bonnie, just as a point of clarification, this is not true in all states. Many states have "Right to Work" laws, which basically entitle employees to work in unionized workplaces and not pay union dues (California is not RTW). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

I should have been more clear. (Thank god I had a 'too early/not enough coffee' disclaimer in there.). Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Krugerrand]

Boeing just used the threat of South Carolina to get the Machinists to agree to major concessions to build the 787x in Seattle.

And to your previous post about irrational voting, the vote in this case was only 51% yes. So even with Boeing's very real threat to move their business to another location if the union employees didn't agree to the contract, 49% of the union members voted to essentially lose their jobs.

 

[Arnold Panz]

And to your previous post about irrational voting, the vote in this case was only 51% yes. So even with Boeing's very real threat to move their business to another location if the union employees didn't agree to the contract, 49% of the union members voted to essentially lose their jobs.

Right. Unions are very unique organizations. Theoretically, unions work to put themselves out of business -- benevolent employers who treat employees fairly and consistently are what unions theoretically hope to accomplish, but there's no need for a union of employers do this on their own. Silicon Valley (or more broadly, the tech industry), with some notable exceptions, embodies many of the ideals that unions espouse for how to treat employees, yet it frustrates unions to no end that they can't make headway in organizing one of the fastest growing industries in the US.

There are a lot of these strange paradoxes throughout the labor world -- union leadership has every incentive to make deals favorable to management in order to help the company grow, which adds members, and therefore dues. So, many rank and file employees don't trust their own union officers (even though they are elected) when they negotiate contracts. In the auto industry in 2009, there was a very significant minority that thought that the companies were secretly hiding billions of dollars in profits, and were just claiming poverty/bankruptcy just to scare workers into accepting concessions. I've personally seen dozens of companies go out of business because a union refused concessions. Just look what happened to Hostess -- one union accepted concessions (but maybe not enough, according to some), and another didn't, and so the whole company went out of business and all the jobs were lost.

These things make me sad, but I understand why it happens because people are scared and don't have the information (or verification) necessary to allay their concerns. All of which goes back to my very first point, which is Tesla should do what it can to avoid a union. Until/unless we have a Germany-like corporate structure where the Works Councils are part of management (half of all public companies' Supervisory Boards in Germany are WC members) and represent all employees in all big companies, it makes no sense for an individual employer in the US to willingly become organized and make management of their workforce more difficult than their competition.

 

[Krugerrand]

Right. Unions are very unique organizations. Theoretically, unions work to put themselves out of business -- benevolent employers who treat employees fairly and consistently are what unions theoretically hope to accomplish, but there's no need for a union of employers do this on their own. Silicon Valley (or more broadly, the tech industry), with some notable exceptions, embodies many of the ideals that unions espouse for how to treat employees, yet it frustrates unions to no end that they can't make headway in organizing one of the fastest growing industries in the US.

There are a lot of these strange paradoxes throughout the labor world -- union leadership has every incentive to make deals favorable to management in order to help the company grow, which adds members, and therefore dues. So, many rank and file employees don't trust their own union officers (even though they are elected) when they negotiate contracts. In the auto industry in 2009, there was a very significant minority that thought that the companies were secretly hiding billions of dollars in profits, and were just claiming poverty/bankruptcy just to scare workers into accepting concessions. I've personally seen dozens of companies go out of business because a union refused concessions. Just look what happened to Hostess -- one union accepted concessions (but maybe not enough, according to some), and another didn't, and so the whole company went out of business and all the jobs were lost.

These things make me sad, but I understand why it happens because people are scared and don't have the information (or verification) necessary to allay their concerns. All of which goes back to my very first point, which is Tesla should do what it can to avoid a union. Until/unless we have a Germany-like corporate structure where the Works Councils are part of management (half of all public companies' Supervisory Boards in Germany are WC members) and represent all employees in all big companies, it makes no sense for an individual employer in the US to willingly become organized and make management of their workforce more difficult than their competition.

That's a great post! It seems to me that unions should have been 'temporary', rather than permanent fixtures in companies. Come in, organize, negotiate to the benefit of employee and company, get paid for that service/contract by the employees, leave.

 

[rage_777]

Believe me, nobody in a Union wants to kill the goose who laid the golden egg. We want workers to be treated fairly, earn a living wage, and be able to put something away for retirement.

I have a teacher for a wife and a friend high up in a national union organization, so I have some experience arguing with them about unions. I put this quote up because the only thing I see that is accurate is that the workers want to be treated fairly and earn a living. Some (maybe more than most) don't want to "be able to put something away for retirement", they want the company to put something away for them for retirement. There are a lot of union members that want the company to do good, but the problem is the union brass keep spewing to the members how much the CEO of the company makes and it riles up the rank and file.

There is one incident that I can remember which started me on the path of not liking unions as much. I was a college student working at the college and we had a guy in maintenance that was a little weird. One day he decided to bring a gun to work (which was illegal at the time) and start threatening people. Police were called he was arrested. Instead of being fired, the union protects him and the school has no choice but to keep him hired. After that he worked about 4 days out of the month for about 4 hours a day because that is what the union contract. So the school still can't fire him. This is when I realized that the unions don't really care about the people he could be putting in danger or the school, but just cares about keeping the members happy so they don't quit the union.

I don't hate unions, but I just don't like some of the things that they do.

1. When the members go on strike, I think everybody in the union management should also not get paid. Then they at least would have some incentive to end the strike sooner. Most times the management doesn't care how long the strike lasts because they get paid either way.
2. Fire the people that do illegal things. Shouldn't there be some moral clause in the union contract that says if you break a law you can be fired.
3. Stop being so lazy. Who cares whose job it is to pick the trash off the ground, pick it up and throw it away. Did you know that flight attendants aren't suppose to help you put your bag in the overhead bins? If they get hurt doing it, the union will say you weren't suppose to do that. So if there are still flight attendants that help you put stuff in the overhead bin, they are the really nice non-lazy ones.
4. Accept that some people will get paid more than others. Yes the CEO gets paid more, but that's because he has way more responsibility than you. If I work harder than you, then I should get paid more than you. If I am the lazy one that everybody has to do my work to meet a deadline, then I should be the one that is fired.

 

[Arnold Panz]

Rage,

We can't blame the union for this. The law obligates the union to protect and defend all members in all of these disciplinary/grievance situations. It's call the Duty of Fair Representation. In the 1950s and 60s, unions wouldn't help black employees if they were disciplined or fired, so this duty developed over time in the courts. Now, it's a terrible burden for unions because they have to defend the worst of the worst or face an unfair labor practice charge and a federal lawsuit.

Of course, this is another great example of why a unionized workforce is not at all optimal or desirable, but we can't blame unions for defending employees -- they are literally required by law to do so.

 

[NoMoGas]

I still see a role for unions in the public sector (not private).

Why? It's the private sector that is driving down wages (except for executives), cutting benefits, outsourcing jobs, all so that they can post higher profits each year. So it's OK for workers to be organized against Government (you and I, We The People) but not OK for them to be organized in the very sector that is doing the most harm to workers?

Also while talking about workers with lost wages and laws not implemented, the speaker carefully stayed away from the US - there are not only laws in place to prevent things like that from happening, there are penalties for employers & there are agencies tasked with ensuring that cannot happen.

You mean like the NLRB whom the Republican Party has all but rendered impotent refusing to appoint members for years and then suing when the President just did it because doing nothing is not governing? Or OSHA? Or the EPA? You forget that with unions out of the way, corporations have spent BILLIONS to push back against every single regulation designed to protect workers, the environment, and frankly all of us and utterly destroy any agency designed to enforce those regulations.

Blocking NLRB (only a sampling)
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...vercome-gops-complete-obstructionism-on-nlrb-

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...aten-fight-nlrb-nominations-boeing-complaint/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113850/senate-republicans-filibuster-nlrb-nominees

Blocking EPA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/u...s-block-vote-on-nominee-to-lead-epa.html?_r=0

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...k-committee-vote-on-obama-epa-nominee-1-.html

Fighting OSHA:
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...uld-block-osha-regulations-afl-cio-cries-foul

CATO Institute (Koch Brothers) paper aiming to ABOLISH OSHA:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1995/10/v18n4-5.pdf

Regarding workplace safety, the US has agencies such as OSHA that visit worksites. I know this for a fact, have hosted them on a mine site where I used to work.

Which with the primary defender (unions) gone the Republicans are trying (and succeeding in some areas) to dismantle. (see above, and there's plenty more where that came from)

You were surprised to learn that in the US, employees are forced to pay union dues at a unionized plant, whether or not they want to be part of the union. (I was surprised to learn it wasn't that way somewhere else.) Others might make the assumption that without unions, worker safety would be ignored, not knowing that there is a safety net in place for that. Same for wages, vacation pay, benefits, etc.

Who put those safety regulations in place? And who fight "regulations" at every turn? As I have repeatedly demonstrated, the Republican Party is consistently attempting to dismantle ALL "Safety Nets" on behalf of Billionaires and Corporations. Vacation pay??? That's a union invention. Same wages? Thats funny, Republicans fought to STOP women from being paid same wages as men for same work. Think this was an issue in union shops? Cause it wasn't.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...-06-05/equal-pay-women-senate-vote/55400316/1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/politics/senate-republicans-block-pay-equity-bill.html

As for paying dues... YES, If you BENEFIT from the bargaining contract struck by a union, you have to pay the union dues.

I think many in the US have seen union management protect people who should have been fired under any reasonable standard, have forced strikes when people didn't want to strike, and have hurt companies instead of finding resolution.

Hogwash. There is no such thing as a "forced strike". I've organized strikes and trust me it stinks. Nobody wants it and THERE IS NO STRIKE WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE WORKERS. PERIOD. We even did a "pre-vote" where we had members fill out strike pledge cards in an effort to have management see that we were serious hoping to avoid a strike.

Have there been instances where someone should be fired but is protected by the union? Sure. Much like some criminals walk because the Constitution protects ALL of us. The bargaining agreement protects ALL workers, and USUALLY will ultimately get rid of the ones who need to, although to provide security for all workers and not have people terrified of being fired for looking at their boss the wrong way a deliberate process is put in place. How is this wrong exactly?

So that's the pushback you're seeing. (Don't you think it's odd that UAW decided to come to Fremont to try to unionize the plant, a plant with plenty of workers familiar with the union already, workers that didn't invite the UAW in?)

Says who? And what pushback? If they don't want it, it won't happen. Do we know that a worker didn't ask the UAW? Isn't like the UAW can force itself in, they have to convince people they would be better if they organized, have meetings, fill out applications and vote. What's the beef? Why should it matter who asked who first?

Personally I find the concept of unions a great thing. But what I have personally seen implemented here in the US private sector has not been such a great thing. It has the stink of power and I can only wonder 'who protects the workers from the union management'?

Tell that to the folks who used to work in sweatshops in the US. Oh, that's right the big corporations moved those sweatshops to other countries like China, Mexico and India. Don't think they wouldn't bring them back here if they could. It's amazing how we tolerate working conditions for others that we would never tolerate ourselves.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexrees/23-brands-caught-in-sweatshop-scandals

As for who protects workers against unions... They do, every time they vote or run for leadership.

 

[brianman]

1) It's a horrible thing because you can track the decline of the middle class whose trend line follows labor unions decline almost perfectly.
2) Who said anything about being paid the same? (Nice hit on "union bosses" as if corporate bosses aren't paid EXORBITANTLY more then the workers who but their tail all week for peanuts.
3) So in your world, Corporations should run free and workers should have no voice against them. While corporation lobbied and got passed legislation that shipped MILLIONS of jobs overseas, fights every regulation to keep our air clean, fights any attempt to raise the minimum wage,fights safety regulations... I could go on all night. One need look no further then the Koch brothers to understand why we need labor unions. 2 Billionaires have more political sway using dozens of their own manufactured groups that back up their own '"arguments" that then get regurgitated on right wing media as fact... Gets pretty maddening to watch.

1. Coincidental occurrence does not imply causality. Some of my coworkers arrive at work somewhat regularly about the same time that I do; that does not mean that there's causality (though it doesn't imply there isn't, either).
2. Being paid the same, or perhaps bracketed by seniority rather than productivity, is the inevitable result of "protect all workers from being fired even if they're child molesters" which is what some teacher unions do for example. And I think you misunderstood my note about union bosses; I wasn't saying they were necessarily worse than CEOs (in the way you're considering income inequality by definition bad) but rather that they are no better.
3. You think billionaires have more sway than industry-wide unions? If that's part of your mindset, I don't think we'll agree on much.

- - - Updated - - -

2. Fire the people that do illegal things. Shouldn't there be some moral clause in the union contract that says if you break a law you can be fired.

We can't blame the union for this. The law obligates the union to protect and defend all members in all of these disciplinary/grievance situations.

I'm confused. The law obligates a union to protect a member doing illegal things?