Unions

[Canuck]

Unions are like socialism. Sure in socialism the rich are poorer, but the poor also are poorer. What would you rather have?
A)An income disparity gap where the rich senior mgmt make 100 times more than the poor factory worker who makes 50k per year?
Or
B)much less of an income disparity gap where senior mgmt may only make 100k per year but the factory workers only make 20k per year.

That's a false choice. Why doesn't anyone ask (1) How money is created? (2) Who creates it? (3) What is it backed by? (4) When money is created who gets the principal? (5) Who gets the interest? (6) Why is fractional lending allowed?

It's too bad we are blind to history. There are answers to these questions. There is no reason for government debt. It's not a question of socialism vs. capitalism.

PS. I am a conservative capitalist. Those in power (i.e. the 1% - and all you who blinding follow their principles - are, in fact, the worst types of socialists - i.e. take from the masses and give to the 1%).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

 

[TSLAopt]

That's a false choice. Why doesn't anyone ask (1) How money is created? (2) Who creates it? (3) What is it backed by? (4) When money is created who gets the principal? (5) Who gets the interest? (6) Why is fractional lending allowed?

It's too bad we are blind to history. There are answers to these questions. There is no reason for government debt. It's not a question of socialism vs. capitalism.

PS. I am a conservative capitalist. Those in power (i.e. the 1% - and all you who blinding follow their principles - are, in fact, the worst types of socialists - i.e. take from the masses and give to the 1%).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

It seems that you might be implying that true wealth is like a zero sum game with those questions, all of which are for an entirely different discussion, while still related to the world we live in obviously and part of why I believe many people will start gravitating towards Bitcoin eventually.

However, with unions the workers are not as motivated to work as hard. Partly becuase your not as afraid to lose your job and partly because your not as likely to get promoted from working harder. This my friend is an unfortunate fact about unions.

P.S. instead of moping about being part of the 99% I work my butt off to become part of the 1% and that is the American dream and why many of the best and brightest in the world strive to live here. Up here at the 1% taxes are about half of income, but I pay it without complaining as I know this country is well worth it and I wouldn't have had the type of opportunities I've gotten here anywhere else in the world.

 

[Canuck]

P.S. instead of moping about being part of the 99% I work my butt off to become part of the 1% and that is the American dream and why many of the best and brightest in the world strive to live here. Up here at the 1%...

Unless you have assets of 19.1 million, and income of 1.4 million per year, you are not in the 1%.

Also, who said I mope around? I bet I pay a lot more in taxes than you do. I just wish I paid 50% in taxes. In Canada, once we take into account federal, provincial, property, PST, GST, I pay way over 50% in taxes, especially considering I am in the highest tax bracket. But, I'm not complaining. I just don't like the fact that a very, very, very few percent of people (not you) can print money out of thin air, loan it to the government, collect the principal and interest from it, and also do fractional lending, and no one seems to care. This was a huge issue in generations past. In fact, Presidents of your country have been assassinated over this very issue. But I guess it's not a big deal.

Plus, very few people have worked harder than me. If you have, I don't envy you. Life's too short. I learned my lesson the hard way, after 7 years of university, then decades without a holiday building a business.

 

[brianman]

Where there's money leeches, lawyers, middlemen, and crooks come out of the woodwork to take a bite.

- - - Updated - - -

A union is just a company that has a different perspective on profit to other companies.

Unions that span an entire industry are more like a government or an international monopoly than a generic company.

- - - Updated - - -

the absolute power of large corporations.

Can you list one or more corporations that have this absolute power you speak of?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Agreed.

- - - Updated - - -

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

I think people should be free of the power hungry unions, which are a bigger threat to them than companies.

- - - Updated - - -

We should leave arguing in absolutes to Fox News.

If you want to set some ground rules, start by avoiding random unrelated potshots.

- - - Updated - - -

Ultimately, the decision to unionize or not will lie with the employees of Tesla Motors. It will be driven by how they feel about their relationship with management.

What I worry is that your first sentence is not the case. Government meddling knows no bounds in the USA today.

- - - Updated - - -

And as has also been explained, unions equalize employees so that those of less personal responsibility can easily hide and are next to impossible to get rid of, while those of greater personal responsibility can't be and aren't recognized for their effort. How do you think that makes the latter feel? How would you feel if you worked your butt off and watched a fellow employee who showed up late regularly, did the bare minimum, and scowled at you for doing your best, received a promotion over you simply because they worked there two weeks longer than you? Yeah, that's what unions allow.

Allow is the wrong word. Promote is a better word.
It's a similar philosophy to a variety of political systems as well.

Race to the bottom is the inevitable result of both.

 

[Canuck]

If you want to set some ground rules, start by avoiding random unrelated potshots.

What? I responded to a comment about doctors making the same as dishwashers. There was nothing random, unrelated or popshot about my comment.

 

[brianman]

What? I responded to a comment about doctors making the same as dishwashers. There was nothing random, unrelated or popshot about my comment.

Reread the part I quoted.

 

[jerry33]

However, with unions the workers are not as motivated to work as hard. Partly becuase your not as afraid to lose your job and partly because your not as likely to get promoted from working harder. This my friend is an unfortunate fact about unions.

And also non-union companies. Many companies put in "salary bands". If you work hard you get to the top of your salary band then no more raises ever regardless of how hard you work. These companies have a tendency to RIF employees--and often the most productive employees so they can move jobs to China or India.

 

[Krugerrand]

I get it. Some people don't like unions. I am just saying that I would like to be in the board room or shareholder meeting when a CEO blames his union employees for his failure to properly manage the business.

No, it's the 'union' that can take on a life of its own, forgetting that the employees need the company as much as the company needs the employees. There's no argument that management sometimes gets it wrong, whether a union is present or not.

 

[SCW-Greg]

I get it. Some people don't like unions. I am just saying that I would like to be in the board room or shareholder meeting when a CEO blames his union employees for his failure to properly manage the business.

More basic than economics, it's instinctual (even primal) the law of high risk, high reward. The founders of companies invest their heart, sweat, and tears... often their financial everything, to start a dream, a vision... A company. It's theirs to run as they see will best accomplish that vision.

Unions exist to maximize employee pay and benefits (and dues), often to the point of the business not being able to make it (think Hostess/Twinkies as one recent example). Often unions put the company in continuous peril, rather than allowing the company to put equity away for future competitive storms.

Each company has the right to run its business conservatively or leveraged to the hilt. But who's place is it to tell the company (management) how it should pay and protect its employees? If the company wants good healthy talent, values low turn-over, then it will rightly take care of its engine, its employees.

Media almost always gets it right btw, in regards to who takes a company down. I.e. bad management decisions, vs. union greed. If anything, management more often than not, gets the blame for union drag / management of contracts and relations. In my view an unneeded distraction to operations (besides siphoned profit).

Finally... have you ever noticed that most unions are brought about, not by the employees themselves, but by outside, self preservating interests?

 

[Krugerrand]

And also non-union companies. Many companies put in "salary bands". If you work hard you get to the top of your salary band then no more raises ever regardless of how hard you work. These companies have a tendency to RIF employees--and often the most productive employees so they can move jobs to China or India.

Or, a particular job is just simply worth a pay range and when you reach the top end, you've reached the top end. It's not like people can't find out what industry standards are in their job choice. If the salary isn't high enough, if they don't believe that's enough compensation for the work they do then they have the choice to pick another occupation that has a higher pay range. Acknowledged that some companies don't pay their employees enough, and those employees can play dumb and claim they didn't know what the pay range was when they were hired, or they can change their minds and decide it's not enough compensation and leave, going to another company that offers a higher salary range or an opportunity to be promoted to higher positions.

People decide every day how much effort they'll put into their career, how hard they'll try, how much pride they'll have in their work. People that base those decisions simply on a number on their pay checks are missing the bigger picture. Sometimes it's not about the money and sometimes it shouldn't be about the money. Do you think those SpaceX and Tesla employees that have worked insane hours are doing it simply because of the money?

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

…/ I have no problem with anyone's right to 'organize'. /…

or·gan·ize
…
v.tr.
…
To induce the employees of (a business or an industry) to form or join a union: organize a factory.

v.intr.
…
To form or join an activist group, especially a labor union.

Source: organize - definition of organize by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

…/ I'm a very 'organized' person. /…

That I don’t doubt for one second.

 

[jerry33]

Or, a particular job is just simply worth a pay range and when you reach the top end, you've reached the top end. It's not like people can't find out what industry standards are in their job choice. If the salary isn't high enough, if they don't believe that's enough compensation for the work they do then they have the choice to pick another occupation that has a higher pay range. Acknowledged that some companies don't pay their employees enough, and those employees can play dumb and claim they didn't know what the pay range was when they were hired, or they can change their minds and decide it's not enough compensation and leave, going to another company that offers a higher salary range or an opportunity to be promoted to higher positions.

Sort of. When the company changes the salary band specifically to limit increases, it doesn't matter what it was when you were hired. Also there is age and experience discrimination, so for many it's virtually impossible to get a better job, or even change jobs because you have too much experience. Prior to 1980 family income and CEO income increased about the same amount--no problem there. After 1980 CEO income increased by leaps and bounds while family income remained stagnant. Worker productivity has also increased since 1980. Kind of says something, doesn't it?

People decide every day how much effort they'll put into their career, how hard they'll try, how much pride they'll have in their work. People that base those decisions simply on a number on their pay checks are missing the bigger picture. Sometimes it's not about the money and sometimes it shouldn't be about the money. Do you think those SpaceX and Tesla employees that have worked insane hours are doing it simply because of the money?

Total agreement there. I put in quite a few insane hours myself but it's because of my personal work ethic, not because of where I work. I suspect that's true for most. There are folks who work hard and there are folks who don't. Unions or non-unions don't really make that much difference as far as how folks work.

 

[SteveH]

It bothers me a bit that some (not all) of the posters on this thread paint unions as all good or all bad.

Unions do have a place in the world. Capitalism is the best economic system we have, but it's not perfect. It works very well when there are high numbers of buyers and high numbers of sellers in all applicable markets. As the numbers of buyers or sellers approach 0, imbalances are introduced. Specific to labor markets those imbalances not only make pricing difficult, but can result in real abuse for employees. This is specifically true when there are a small number of employers, but high numbers of potential employees in a particular labor market. Unions are in imperfect, but necessary means to help protect employees from these abuses. They are completely unnecessary and in fact introduce their own imbalances when they are implemented in a market that already has a high number of employers and employees. In developed countries, their are often other laws implemented to protect employees, but they rarely comprehensive enough to eliminate the need for unions entirely.

However, as I said unions are imperfect and there are two common problems that they introduce into the system.

1. They depend largely on union leaders and business management to develop and equitable balance. This often doesn't happen and ineffective unions (and/or unfavorable legal structures) can still leave their members exposed. Similarly, highly effective unions (and/or overly favorable legal structures) can create an imbalance that favors the union members. Both are bad for the economy.

2. There's no inherent reason why this need be true for all unions, but the unions I'm familiar with often favor seniority with no consideration for job excellence. This clearly leaves less incentive for employees to excel and create economic inefficiencies. This problem with unions is completely avoidable.

The best we can do as citizens is encourage our politicians to create legal environments that promote balance between unions and management. At the same time we can hope that union leaders recognize that their members and society in general is better off if they develop contracts that reward excellence and downplay length of membership.

 

[Chris TX]

Proper profit sharing and departmental goals work much better than unionization: They give incentive to the employee to do a good/great job. Unions work to "protect" their members from doing too much for the company.

Unions =
-If you meet your quota, you stop working
-If you go over quota, you are chastised by your peers and foreman
-Strive to do as little as possible, and make sure that work ethic is passed around
-Even if you're a crappy employee, you are protected and it's virtually impossible to get fired
-You strike (shut down the company, you lose pay) if the union bosses don't get along with management

My family was subjected to a machinists union's stupidity for decades. They made it impossible for the company to make money here in the states so they shipped all the new/good machines to Mexico. They kept all the crappy ones here in the states. The good/seasoned machinists decided to apply for the union-run maintenance crew, so everyone lost. My Father retires in less than a year, so he's just biding his time.

I'm just a bit biased. Never mind me

 

[claytorj]

@ GlennAlanBerry & NoMoGas & SteveH

+1 and agreed.

Every company is different. Each work environment has good things and bad things. Each union group brings good things and bad things. The employees have to weigh the risks and rewards of organizing, with the risks and rewards of not organizing.

Management can never fix all the problems. Management can never make everyone happy. Management's role is to give the employees a voice to raise issues, LISTEN, work on making improvements that will be good for both the employees and for the company (and yes sometimes this includes giving the employees more money), and finally and perhaps most importantly, communicating to the employees everything they are doing.

If the employees truly feel that management and the employees have a good relationship, then why would they ever choose to introduce a third party (union) into the mix? If the employees feel they are being ignored or marginalized by management, why wouldn't they vote to organize to force management to listen to them?

Unions will never be extinct, and never should be extinct, as the "threat" of unionization is often the biggest motivator for management to continuously strive to make improvements and address employee concerns.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

…/ I'm against being forced to organize, which many employees are. /…

In Sweden no one is forced to join a union no matter what. If folks have indeed been forced to join a union in the US (or elsewhere), surely there must be some sort of (relatively) objective and impartial depiction of one or several such events. Or maybe this procedure is even documented in some publicly accessible 'unionizing 101-page' of an actual union somewhere.

So if this is indeed the case, just point me in the right direction (as in post a link that I can click on).


- - - Updated - - -

…/ I briefly worked in a retail union, though I did everything I could to not sign up, as long as I could, ultimately it was not an option. /…

Why was it not an option to not sign up?


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. 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…

 

[Mnlevin]

In Sweden no one is forced to join a union no matter what. If folks have indeed been forced to join a union in the US (or elsewhere), surely there must be some sort of (relatively) objective and impartial depiction of one or several such events. Or maybe this procedure is even documented in some publicly accessible 'unionizing 101-page' of an actual union somewhere.

So if this is indeed the case, just point me in the right direction (as in post a link that I can click on).

Dont really understand your comments fully, but it is a fact in the US, if the shop is Union, EVERYONE must join and pay dues. We have very few Unions in Florida, but my daughter works in Massachusetts and she was forced to join a Union where she works. In fact she has a Masters Degree, and it is pitiful what they are paying her as a Mental Health Counselor. She barely earns $32k per year and has to join and pay the union. While I would be considered a Social Liberal, I have no use of Unions. I have a friend who is a fabulous Electrician, but he is in the Union. He tells me that the majority of these electricians take little pride in their work and give him a lot of crap if he puts forth his best efforts. They will slack on the job and sometimes even sabotage a job if they are upset about something. I think Unions had a place 130-80 years ago, but now the job market can dictate the survival of the fittest workers. When the slack or dont do their job, out they go.

 

[Kraius]

In Sweden no one is forced to join a union no matter what. If folks have indeed been forced to join a union in the US (or elsewhere), surely there must be some sort of (relatively) objective and impartial depiction of one or several such events. Or maybe this procedure is even documented in some publicly accessible 'unionizing 101-page' of an actual union somewhere.

So if this is indeed the case, just point me in the right direction (as in post a link that I can click on).


- - - Updated - - -

Why was it not an option to not sign up?

This is done via contract negotiation with the union (once it's powerful enough in the company) and the employer. The union requires the employer to sign an agreement that says they'll only hire union-represented employees for specific jobs going forward. Some contracts even require they fire any non-union members if they don't convert in a specific time period. The term you're looking for by the way is "union shop":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think what Elon fundamentally means in his "neutral" position is that he is open to his workers organizing and joining unions.

However, UAW's approach is different, as they work "top down" to convert a factory to a "union" one (as they are doing now speaking to management). Which means essentially all workers are forced to join the union or there's unfavorable conditions if you don't join (like deducting union dues from your pay even though you are not in the union, with the rationale that you "benefit" from the existence of the union even if you aren't part of it; my father has such deductions from his paycheck). I don't think Elon is open to this idea.

If UAW takes a "bottom up" approach by convincing workers to join and organize rather than talking to management then I think Elon would not be opposed to that.

 

[Johann Koeber]

What should be remembered in this discussion, is the large difference between unions in Europe and unions in the US. Corporate culture totally different.

Workers participation is in the law for big companies in Germany (even Europe). Any corporation with more than 500 employees will have employee participation. Employees are represented on the board with half of the boardmembers. If there is a tie in the votes, then the chairman of the supervisory board has two votes.

The idea is that capital and work are equally important.

German unions do not try to kill the company.

US seems a lot different.