Unions

[GlennAlanBerry]

Labor unions are one of the few defenses that the average worker has against the absolute power of large corporations. Unionization in the United States has been in pretty steep decline for the last 30-40 years, just as income inequality has become much worse during the same period.

If people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have more money, they tend to spend it, which increases economic demand, which is good for everyone. Raising the minimum wage would have also a stimulative effect on the economy.

Henry Ford had the wisdom to pay his workers enough so they could realistically afford to buy a Model T, out of enlightened self-interest. I am not sure why modern corporations cannot seem to see past their quarterly results in this "race to the bottom". Not everyone can or should go to college. Unions tend to help blue-collar workers become part of the economic middle-class, which grows the overall market for goods and services.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

I think you're missing his point completely. He's not arguing that the oil doesn't provide wealth, but that Norway's approach to the oil helps promote wealth and income equality since Norway both encourages domestic efficiency and retains the profits in a long-term investment fund. It's easy to contrast that with policies in other nations that subsidize inefficiency, privatize or take a lessez-faire approach to energy.

Precisely! Thanks!

And,

So your contention is the difference between Norway's $100k per capita standard of living and Sweden's ~$53k per capita standard of living is that Norwegians are just that much smarter than Swedes at organizing themselves since workers vote for union leadership and voters elect political leaders.

I’m guessing there are many factors.

Again: Per capita does not paint a sufficiently clear picture of actual income distribution. It doesn’t tell us anything.

Other factors:

Norway has up until the election this autumn had 8 years of Social democratic governments. Sweden has had 7 years of right wing governments.

As I understand it the official unemployment rate in Norway is ~3.3%. In Sweden it’s ~8%. But those numbers might not be that comparable. The ‘real’ unemployment rate in Sweden is probably higher. And depending on how you count you can get a much higher percentage number for Sweden.

Another factor is that Sweden has had a lot more immigration than Norway. The unemployment rate among immigrants in Sweden is higher than for the rest of the population.

But sure; oil no doubt plays a part. It has probably created a lot of jobs. But I do think unions have also played a part in getting a lot of that money to ‘ordinary’ workers. A low unemployment rate is for example beneficial to the bargaining ‘power’ of unions. Having 60% of domestic oil and gas production in a largely state owned corporation probably hasn’t hurt either.

AND – with regards to the awesomeness of Norway when it comes to Tesla and the Models S: Norway hasn’t got any VAT on electric cars. In Sweden we have VAT on all cars – 25% VAT! And in Sweden we also don’t have the ‘high’ gas guzzler taxation rate that Norway has. That makes a big difference. If we had the same kind of taxations policy with regards to ICE/EV vehicles, then that would result in huge number of Tesla sales in Sweden as well.

- - - Updated - - -

America has Three Independent Auto Makers.

How many does Sweden have?

Those Auto Makers have a domestic market with a total population of ~316 million!

The Swedish domestic market has a total population of ~9.6 million!

So what’s your point?


Edit: So it seems I was unaware of what seems to be a vital difference in employer & (unionized) employee relations that exists in the US on one hand, and Sweden on the other. See post #77 down thread. So I guess I have no other choice than to remain neutral on the topic of unions in the US until I have fully understood the differences…

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

America has Three Independent Auto Makers.

How many does Sweden have?

And also:

What would have happened if the US gov. hadn’t bought GM? How much money has the US gov. lent to Ford and Tesla (And Fiat/Chrysler)?

The Swedish gov. could have bought Volvo Cars and Saab Automobile and merged them at the very same time the US gov. bought GM. Instead in 2009 the designated Swedish minister for Enterprise Maud Olofsson said publicly that “Volvo och Saab tillverkar fel bilar”, which translates into: Volvo and Saab are making the wrong kind of cars[SUP]1[/SUP] (!) The Swedish gov. apparently preferred to put down Saab and let Volvo be sold to ‘Communist’ China[SUP]2[/SUP] (!) …

Who knows how the ownership structure of Volvo Cars and Saab Automobile would have looked like today if they had been bought by the Swedish gov. instead.


[SUP]1[/SUP]Rädda – för regeringen | Collins krönika | Bil | Aftonbladet (in Swedish)

[SUP]2[/SUP]Volvo V60 Plug-in Hybrid (Post #2)

 

[strider]

If I may dare to bring this thread back on topic, if Tesla treats its workers fairly and pays them well, there won't be any need for a union. Unions tend to arise when workers are exploited.

I completely agree and also believe that all private-sector workers should be allowed to organize and form a union. What I dislike are the myriad laws that force workers into unions and dictate how they can live their lives (which is slavery). I don't have a private sector example, but a public sector one. I know a guy who is a firefighter for one of the towns here but does not live in that town. The town in which he lives has a volunteer fire department. The firefighter's union has forbade him from joining his own town's fire department.

All that to say, if some employees want to organize they should be free to do so. But they should not be allowed to force everyone to join and pull dues from their checks which is how the laws work today.

Finally, I will say that private-sector unions and capitalism absolutely are compatible and IMO healthy. Mgmt has a profit motive and labor has a wage motive. They meet, bargain, and compromise in the middle. This is coincidentally exactly why public-sector unions should be illegal because the above conditions don't exist in that realm.

 

[Kraius]

The problem with Tesla and unions is that unions get tagged (somewhat fairly) with being anti-automation and protectionist. A unionized Tesla would have more difficulty leveraging new automation technology if that technology replaced (or i guess displaced depending on your viewpoint) union members. I always used to say if switchboard operators were unionized back in the day, we wouldn't have computerized phone switches today (an exaggerated example but it makes a point).

There are some great things about unions, but there are also some pretty lousy things about them too (individual achievement is discouraged, as it makes other members look bad, members are less "agile" as only certain people can do certain jobs, so you cannot pitch in and pickup the slack dynamically, etc...). That said, I am curious to see if Tesla employees even want to be unionized. Unions do have a perception problem with the younger generation, and especially with the more tech-focused sectors. I think part of it is human nature. If you set up safeguards to a certain limit, a percentage of your workforce is always going to abuse that limit. The challenge for Tesla would be to encourage a lean and agile union-based workforce. But something tells me that with everything else Elon Musk is trying to reinvent, unions aren't going to be one of them.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

…I know a guy who is a firefighter … This is coincidentally exactly why public-sector unions should be illegal because the above conditions don't exist in that realm.

I don’t know how the laws work in the US. But if what you describe is true with regards to that firefighter, then I don’t see any reason for that either. And of course: No one should be forced to join a union.

However, and maybe I’m missing something, but it seems pretty clear to me that large parts of both the House and the Senate have a stance that’s identical to the profit motive of the private sector when it comes to the public sector. And it also seems pretty clear that these parts have influenced current policy. And doesn’t workers in the public sector have a wage motive? So that part I don’t get.


- - - Updated - - -

And it isn’t 'only' about wages. For example: It’s also about the work environment, and the hours the employer can demand that you put in.


Edit: So it seems I was unaware of what seems to be a vital difference in employer & (unionized) employee relations that exists in the US on one hand, and Sweden on the other. See post #77 down thread. So I guess I have no other choice than to remain neutral on the topic of unions in the US until I have fully understood the differences…

 

[AndyM]

Unions are needed in cases where there is a need to protect workers from unfair management practices. I can side with the workers who need this.
A union seeking to organize workers who don't need this protection is simply self-serving and lining its pockets.

Let the workers decide, not the bureaucrats, if a union is warranted.

(full disclosure: I have some experience in being on a board of directors for a school where a union was voted in to represent, then voted out by the members soon thereafter.)

 

[NoMoGas]

Labor unions are one of the few defenses that the average worker has against the absolute power of large corporations. Unionization in the United States has been in pretty steep decline for the last 30-40 years, just as income inequality has become much worse during the same period.

If people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have more money, they tend to spend it, which increases economic demand, which is good for everyone. Raising the minimum wage would have also a stimulative effect on the economy.

Henry Ford had the wisdom to pay his workers enough so they could realistically afford to buy a Model T, out of enlightened self-interest. I am not sure why modern corporations cannot seem to see past their quarterly results in this "race to the bottom". Not everyone can or should go to college. Unions tend to help blue-collar workers become part of the economic middle-class, which grows the overall market for goods and services.

AMEN.

OK, So I might as well come out of the union closet. I was a union organizer. Unions invented a few things I thing most of us appreciate:

1) Weekends off (5 day work week)
2) Sick time off (paid and unpaid)
3) Vacation Pay
4) Minimum Wage Law
5) OSHA and Safety Regulations
6) Maternity Leave
7) Family Medical Leave Act
9) End of US Sweatshops
10) Health Insurance

A rising tide lifts all boats. Yes there are people that would love to kill unions and stomp all over the working man, and do at every chance with lines like "raising pay kills jobs" etc... yes, if we lowered pay to 1.00 an hour we could have full employment but at what costs? The best "defense" against a union setting shop is to keep your employees happy.

As for the statement that unions are a "risk" to Tesla.. That was a Risk Management Assessment... of course they are. So was going public. So is Elon Musk. Things are risks, and some are acceptable.

A union would hold Tesla's feet to the fire in how they treat their employees, not a bad thing if we really care how the people that make our cars are treated. If they are mostky happy now, UAW on't get a foothold. It really is that simple.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

[1] The problem with Tesla and unions is that unions get tagged (somewhat fairly) with being anti-automation and protectionist. [2] A unionized Tesla would have more difficulty leveraging new automation technology if that technology replaced (or i guess displaced depending on your viewpoint) union members. [3] I always used to say if switchboard operators were unionized back in the day, we wouldn't have computerized phone switches today (an exaggerated example but it makes a point).

There are some great things about unions, but there are also some pretty lousy things about them too [4] (individual achievement is discouraged, as it makes other members look bad, members are less "agile" as only certain people can do certain jobs, so you cannot pitch in and pickup the slack dynamically, etc...). …

1. I think people in unions working in a car factory also understand the realities of the competitive industry they’re in. Therefore they also understand that if the company as a hole can’t keep up with it’s competitors, then they’re all going to loose their jobs. I also believe that they can all see the greater good Elon and the rest of the owners are trying to achieve with Tesla; i.e. alleviating Man Made Climate Change.

2. See 1.

3. Why couldn’t these switchboard operators simply have been terminated?

4. This just sound like unfounded prejudices. Regardless; even if that was true, it sounds like something that could be very easily fixed by management.


- - - Updated - - -

@ GlennAlanBerry & NoMoGas

+1 and agreed.

…/ A union would hold Tesla's feet to the fire in how they treat their employees, not a bad thing if we really care how the people that make our cars are treated. If they are mostly happy now, UAW won't get a foothold. It really is that simple.

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?


Edit: So it seems I was unaware of what seems to be a vital difference in employer & (unionized) employee relations that exists in the US on one hand, and Sweden on the other. See post #77 down thread. So I guess I have no other choice than to remain neutral on the topic of unions in the US until I have fully understood the differences…

 

[Krugerrand]

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?

Poppycock!

Unions are run by people, all of whom have their own personal agendas not always inline with the company or for the company's good.
Unions make it about the employees vs the company.
Unions require everyone to be part of them even if/when someone doesn't want to be part of them.
Unions make lazy employees lazier.
Unions make hardworking employees frustrated.
Unions make it next to impossible to get rid of poor workers.
Unions make companies downsize via less seniority rather than via less work output/less skills.
Unions squeeze companies (on behalf of employees!?), regardless if it's good for the company's survival or not, thusly putting companies out of business.

Yes, yes, I understand what unions are suppose to be. It's all quite noble and for the good of the employee, but what of the company? No company, no employees. Yes, I acknowledge that unions have worked for some, and brought a more level playing field, but it's not all been sunshine, butterflies and rainbows. Unions have done their share of destruction. Today is not the past and unions are as outdated as car dealerships.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

@ Krugerrand

They haven’t managed to kill off Mercedes, BMW or Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche.

For me it comes down to everyone’s right to freely organize.

Ok. So you don’t like unions. I do.

And here’s a case study for you with regards to being outdated: Ryanair!


Edit: So it seems I was unaware of what seems to be a vital difference in employer & (unionized) employee relations that exists in the US on one hand, and Sweden on the other. See post #77 down thread. So I guess I have no other choice than to remain neutral on the topic of unions in the US until I have fully understood the differences…

 

[artsci]

Labor unions are one of the few defenses that the average worker has against the absolute power of large corporations. Unionization in the United States has been in pretty steep decline for the last 30-40 years, just as income inequality has become much worse during the same period.

If people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have more money, they tend to spend it, which increases economic demand, which is good for everyone. Raising the minimum wage would have also a stimulative effect on the economy.

Henry Ford had the wisdom to pay his workers enough so they could realistically afford to buy a Model T, out of enlightened self-interest. I am not sure why modern corporations cannot seem to see past their quarterly results in this "race to the bottom". Not everyone can or should go to college. Unions tend to help blue-collar workers become part of the economic middle-class, which grows the overall market for goods and services.

Amen.

 

[AmpedUP]

Keep your workers happy, and unions won't be needed or desired. I'm sure Elon and company can do this.

 

[bonnie]

I have an issue when the UAW is interested in organizing workers, rather than workers asking UAW to help with organizing. It sounds a bit like UAW looking for more dues.

Years ago, I was assistant to the Director of Entertainment at one of the large casinos on the Las Vegas strip. (Awesome job, I handled Frank Sinatra, Shirley Maclaine, Steve Martin, etc.) Anyhoo, at one point the casino employees decided they wanted to unionize and contacted the local union for help. The union came in and talked to us, collected information, got enough signatures to hold a vote ... met with casino management ... and we never heard from them again.

So what do I think of unions? I think they were very necessary in the past to stop a lot of bad practices. I think they still are necessary for public service groups today, such as teachers, police, firemen - who are not always given the consideration they should be given.

But UAW coming in? Bleh. I guess the employee base will decide for themselves. If they feel they need protection from management and want to give a percentage of their paycheck to the union to do that, then they will. But I'm guessing that the UAW isn't going to end up representing the factory workers in Fremont.

Time will tell.

 

[Krugerrand]

@ Krugerrand

They haven’t managed to kill off Mercedes, BMW or Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche.

For me it comes down to everyone’s right to freely organize.

Ok. So you don’t like unions. I do.

And here’s a case study for you with regards to being outdated: Ryanair!

Do you want me to start listing the companies that unions have killed?

I have no problem with anyone's right to 'organize'. I'm a very 'organized' person.

I'm against being forced to organize, which many employees are. I'm against paying for it. I'm against organizations thinking they know what's best for me (and paying them for it). I'm against organizations that can't see past the end of their noses. I'm against organizations that abuse their power because they have the numbers. I'm against organizations that pit their members against the one buttering their bread - that's called biting the hand that feeds you. I'm against organizations that protect selfish members et al...

As free as people are to organize, they are also free to not work for a specific company.

 

[Kraius]

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 that kinda makes my point about individualism in my original statement. Unions are not for individual measurement and individual success. They want to put all workers in a single cohesive block so that you cannot identify individuals for promotion or firing. Not to try and make it sound like an evil thing, because it's not. It's just the nature/point of a union (because it also gives them the most leverage/protection as well). The downside of it is the bad apples have a much easier time staying in with the good apples and union members are encourages to meet specific guidelines/goals but to not exceed them. Go to a union shop and try and crank out the work and show off for a few shifts. Your "brothers" will not appreciate you for it (I have friends who did this and were threatened "politely" by other union members). Sure, I have prejudices with unions (who doesn't, on either side?) but they aren't unfounded. As a societal tool goes, unions are absolutely a double-edged sword.

Bringing it back around to the original topic of the thread, individual exceptionalism is what silicon valley (and Tesla) thrives on. I think unionizing (unnecessarily, ie non-abusive management) would hurt the company's ability to exceed expectations as regularly as it does.

 

[bonnie]

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. They are not responsible for 'solidarity with other workers'.

Let me ask you this ... 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?

 

[AnOutsider]

Do you want me to start listing the companies that unions have killed?

I have no problem with anyone's right to 'organize'. I'm a very 'organized' person.

I'm against being forced to organize, which many employees are. I'm against paying for it. I'm against organizations thinking they know what's best for me (and paying them for it). I'm against organizations that can't see past the end of their noses. I'm against organizations that abuse their power because they have the numbers. I'm against organizations that pit their members against the one buttering their bread - that's called biting the hand that feeds you. I'm against organizations that protect selfish members et al...

As free as people are to organize, they are also free to not work for a specific company.

The 10 degree weather outside must be rising from hell, because krugerrand and I are 100% in agreement.

 

[bonnie]

 

[Joel]

Ironically, Tesla could manufacture in Michigan to avoid the UAW. As of 2012, Michigan is a Right to Work State.

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia