Labor Unions - Do we need them anymore?

[lindaj07]

Exactly! This proves my point doesn't it? GM is in financing and not car manufacture because they can get cheaper cars over the border in Mexico. The global economy is to blame, not trade unions.

I think that you will find out that eg Tiger Woods fee for advertising Nike shoes is FAR greater than the pay of the people who actually make the shoes in Indonesia (and I mean like a million times greater! check that out too!)

That's partly true. But ask yourself why it cost so much money to make a car in the US. GM for instance, doesn’t make money from the cars they make; their money is made in financing.

Remember that labor is the single greatest cost to a company.

 

[Robert]

"Ions is right but don't let us brow beat you Robert!! "

Don't worry about me when Ions is showing his ignorance of business and the US auto industry.

 

[lindaj07]

Sorry! I have to go now but I am not ducking out of the discussion! I WILL BE BACK!!
see you later!

 

[Robert]

Exactly! This proves my point doesn't it? GM is in financing and not car manufacture because they can get cheaper cars over the border in Mexico. The global economy is to blame, not trade unions.

I think that you will find out that eg Tiger Woods fee for advertising Nike shoes is FAR greater than the pay of the people who actually make the shoes in Indonesia (and I mean like a million times greater! check that out too!)

What Tiger Woods makes from Nike is nothing compared to what Nike makes because of Tiger.

You're missing the point, Linda. GM can't make a profit on their cars because of their high cost of doing business. This is a burden on the company that has grown for many many years.

 

[Robert]

Sorry! I have to go now but I am not ducking out of the discussion! I WILL BE BACK!!
see you later!

Coward!

 

[Kenny Shovel]

It's impossible to not have needy people in this world. It's impossible to not have poor, poverty stricken areas in this world.

I'd phrase that slightly differently. I'd say you're always going to have people doing the lowest skilled, lowest paid jobs; that will never change. I'd also say that the living standards of the poorest 10% of a countries population is every bit as relevant a measure of the success of your society as the living standards of your top 10%, perhaps even more so.
You’re right that the most poorly paid workers often have no union representation, and perhaps that is no co-incidence. Whatever our personal experiences of unions, and mine haven’t been 100% positive, perhaps there is a need for help for those at the bottom, those who are the most vulnerable, to feel they have someone on their side.
Saying there will always be those who are poor can come dangerously close to turning a blind eye. How poor can the poorest be before we become uncomfortable? This poor:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536085.stm
to quote from your OP “it is now 2005”…

 

[Robert]

Exactly! This proves my point doesn't it? GM is in financing and not car manufacture because they can get cheaper cars over the border in Mexico. The global economy is to blame, not trade unions.

I think that you will find out that eg Tiger Woods fee for advertising Nike shoes is FAR greater than the pay of the people who actually make the shoes in Indonesia (and I mean like a million times greater! check that out too!)

Another thing to keep in mind with Mexico is that Mexico has a labor glut. Companies take business there because they can pay what ever they want, and workers have to take it because if they don’t, then someone else will. Of course, companies also take work there because they don’t have the EPA to worry about, but that’s for another discussion. Anyway, Mexico is probably a good example of someplace where a union would help in securing a decent wage for workers. Well, helpful until they become corrupt like some US Labor Unions. The situation in the US is just the opposite. There are more jobs then workers, forcing companies to pay competitive wage and benefits to keep employees. So part of the answer as to whether a union is necessary is determined by the labor market.

 

[Robert]

I'd phrase that slightly differently. I'd say you're always going to have people doing the lowest skilled, lowest paid jobs; that will never change. I'd also say that the living standards of the poorest 10% of a countries population is every bit as relevant a measure of the success of your society as the living standards of your top 10%, perhaps even more so.
You’re right that the most poorly paid workers often have no union representation, and perhaps that is no co-incidence. Whatever our personal experiences of unions, and mine haven’t been 100% positive, perhaps there is a need for help for those at the bottom, those who are the most vulnerable, to feel they have someone on their side.
Saying there will always be those who are poor can come dangerously close to turning a blind eye. How poor can the poorest be before we become uncomfortable? This poor:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536085.stm
to quote from your OP “it is now 2005”…

The poor are always a concern. In the US, a better paying job is often just an education away. All workers have to have is desire to do it.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

The poor are always a concern. In the US, a better paying job is often just an education away. All workers have to have is desire to do it.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this one Robert. I can remember my Mother working her arse off holding down two jobs to keep a roof over our heads during the 70's and never having a penny left over to spend on herself, and to be honest in all the times I saw her fall asleep in the chair at night out of sheer exhaustion I never once had the impression she lacked a desire for a better life. I'm gunna take a guess that there are people in America like that too.

 

[novella]

We Need Unions Now More Than Ever

Labor unions are one of the last social-political supports available to blue collar workers in the US. Their function is not just in collective bargaining—they also provide formal trade apprenticeship, education plans, scholarships for family members, health benefits, pensions. They guarantee that a worker can sit down with corporate ownership and negotiate a living wage. (Minimum wage in the US is not a living wage.)

When a union worker has personal problems, like disability, mental illness, trouble at home, they turn to the union first, not the federal welfare system. More than 20% of US workers are in unions.

Unions these days are prone to corruption and have been weakened by the government. In particular, the ability of American workers to organize has been steadily eroded since 1947, when the government felt its power threatened by labor organizations and began to amend the Wagner Act to prohibit certain types of organization strategies.

That said, the polarization of wealth in America is worse than ever, and the only way for the huge, powerless service-sector workforce (restaurant workers, hotel workers, Wal-Mart employees, other retail workers) to work a full-time week for a living wage and health benefits is to organize, which has not even BEGUN to happen.

Talking about the function of the union in the US manufacturing sector is silly when industrial production is being outsourced to cheap labor markets. Who cares about the effectiveness of the ILGWU when the entire country is buying clothes made in Southeast Asia for pennies an hour? The same is true for agricultural workers, tool and die shops, steel manufacturing—all outsourcing to cheap labor markets. If you want to argue that that's the US unions' fault for asking for 'too much' consider what the corporations profit margins are even now.

 

[Motokid]

Lindaj07,

For the most part I believe Unions are a dying institution. A union worker is not always better worker, but often times a union worker is a higher paid worker. A company's product is only as good as the employees making the products. Treat your employees like shit, with low wages and no benefits and the product you make will suffer accordingly. You'll spend huge sums of money hiring and training the constant flow of new hires and the product will again suffer....

Most companies around where I live are not union outfits. They are doing well, and the employees are, for the most part, happy.

Who should own and run a company, the owners and bosses, or the employees? Why should the employees be able to "walk" off the job and demand higher wages and better benefits without fear of losing their job?
Why should the employees be able to basically shut down a business and hold it hostage based on the wages and working conditions they agreed to in the first place?

If you don't like your pay and benefits go get another job. Go to school. Ask for a raise. Seek a higher position within the company. Work your way into a better position. Why is that the wrong idea?

 

[novella]

Strategies of Non-Union Shops to Cut Costs and Tame Employees

--Fire workers with tenure who earn more and hire young newbies who earn less.
--Hire as many part-time workers as possible, so that you don't have to pay for health benefits.
--Hire illegal nondocumented, nontaxpaying laborers whenever it is convenient.
--'Mob' those workers you do not want to employ any longer (if you don't know this term, you should look it up.)
--Foster a corporate culture of 'higher pay for harder work,' which is the typical anti-union line that people fall for, until they find themselves either disabled, older than the desirable age, or merely disliked by their boss.
--Implicitly threaten to fire anyone who doesn't cooperate with these strategies.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

If you don't like your pay and benefits go get another job. Go to school. Ask for a raise. Seek a higher position within the company. Work your way into a better position. Why is that the wrong idea?

I work in I.T. and these are options I have. You think these options are available to everyone? I suspect not.

 

[novella]

If you don't like your pay and benefits go get another job. Go to school. Ask for a raise. Seek a higher position within the company. Work your way into a better position. Why is that the wrong idea?

Unions were formed to protect people who specifically don't have these options. The coal miners, for example, were captives of their employers before unions--the coal companies owned the towns, the shops, the source of income, the schools. They had no means of transportation and no education to go anywhere else.

This is still true today of some populations.

Say you work in retail, stocking shelves at night in a big store. You've worked there for 25 years. You grew up poor and never went to college. You are now 55. The manager thinks you're not hacking it. You have a bad back, but you try to pull your weight. You only get health benefits if you're full-time, but they ask you to take part-time or you will be laid off. You make 35K a year. They want to hire a 20 year old for 20K a year to do your job. Your rent has gone up, gas prices have gone up. When you decide to look for another job, you are told that you are asking too much money and that young kids will work for half that. What do you do? What is your role in society at that point? Are you really asking too much when you desire a living wage and job security and health care?

 

[lindaj07]

it really doesn't help your argument any by quoting from personal experience or "personalising" your argument. As you say, finance not manual labour is the order of the day in US but what about the people in the places that manual production takes place? We ignore them? If we take that attitude then you are right... For a small percentage of the world's population (and the other bigger percentage ARE ignored and invisible) things are better materially. Your wages are ok, but you are still part of a small percentage of the global population. Also, your wages are ok but this is not a natural phenomenon, things could change at the whim of global capital. It has changed in the past, no reason why it won't happen again in the future. "treat your employees like shit..."? As for that statement, folding a company, moving it out of the country, leaving whole FAMILIES without a bread winner, removing the basic right to work and have dignity, these are the things that happened in the 80s and early 90s in UK and US. If that isn't treating your workers like shit, what is exactly? You really think employers would think twice about treating you like shit no matter what you do to please them? When the time comes you are out on your ear, unless you have a well organised trade union behind you. Contrary to your belief, people are NOT free to walk in and out of a job as they please. Employers are not in the business of philanthropy as I said before.

Lindaj07,

For the most part I believe Unions are a dying institution. A union worker is not always better worker, but often times a union worker is a higher paid worker. A company's product is only as good as the employees making the products. Treat your employees like shit, with low wages and no benefits and the product you make will suffer accordingly. You'll spend huge sums of money hiring and training the constant flow of new hires and the product will again suffer....

Most companies around where I live are not union outfits. They are doing well, and the employees are, for the most part, happy.

Who should own and run a company, the owners and bosses, or the employees? Why should the employees be able to "walk" off the job and demand higher wages and better benefits without fear of losing their job?
Why should the employees be able to basically shut down a business and hold it hostage based on the wages and working conditions they agreed to in the first place?

If you don't like your pay and benefits go get another job. Go to school. Ask for a raise. Seek a higher position within the company. Work your way into a better position. Why is that the wrong idea?

 

[lindaj07]

Unions are not dying institutions. But take the worst case scenario, suppose they were dead. Unionisation had to begin somewhere, it was not always in existence. If they are dead, it is always possible to revive them. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself it is not worth trying to organise? If this is true, I believe it is a very big mistake to make. But they are not dead, recent history in US and UK has shown this. I would suggest you look at Seattle November/December 1999 as a starting point to the regeneration of trade union activity. That is of course, only one example, there are countless numbers of others.
Have you fallen asleep yet? OK I will get off my soapbox!!

Lindaj07,

For the most part I believe Unions are a dying institution. A union worker is not always better worker, but often times a union worker is a higher paid worker. A company's product is only as good as the employees making the products. Treat your employees like shit, with low wages and no benefits and the product you make will suffer accordingly. You'll spend huge sums of money hiring and training the constant flow of new hires and the product will again suffer....

Most companies around where I live are not union outfits. They are doing well, and the employees are, for the most part, happy.

Who should own and run a company, the owners and bosses, or the employees? Why should the employees be able to "walk" off the job and demand higher wages and better benefits without fear of losing their job?
Why should the employees be able to basically shut down a business and hold it hostage based on the wages and working conditions they agreed to in the first place?

If you don't like your pay and benefits go get another job. Go to school. Ask for a raise. Seek a higher position within the company. Work your way into a better position. Why is that the wrong idea?

 

[lindaj07]

And why does Mexico have a labour glut? Companies drift around the world at leisure in the pursuit of the £ or $ note. It isn't just Mexico, South East Asia is an excellent example of how a regional economy can be boosted or deflated according to big business. Remember what I said about Tiger Woods/NIke?Indonesian shoe makers. Mexico, you are right, is a very good example. Corruption or not, is not a reason for not having a union. It is only as strong as its membership. The situation in US... suppose it is the opposite today? Just suppose... I would say not, for a lot of people (New Orleans) If it is the opposite today, can you guarantee that it will still be the opposite tomorrow? next week? next year? ....
The need for a union will exist as long as workers sell their labour and employers buy it. It is one of the great conflicts and contradictions of the system. Check Marx, (surprised??) for the exact quote.
I would argue that what happens in Mexico today affects me too. If not today, then tomorrow or blah blah. As the dollar or pound note flies around the world in pursuit of profit, security in employment will continue to fluxuate and you or I have little or no control over that, without the support of a well organised trade union movement.

Another thing to keep in mind with Mexico is that Mexico has a labor glut. Companies take business there because they can pay what ever they want, and workers have to take it because if they don’t, then someone else will. Of course, companies also take work there because they don’t have the EPA to worry about, but that’s for another discussion. Anyway, Mexico is probably a good example of someplace where a union would help in securing a decent wage for workers. Well, helpful until they become corrupt like some US Labor Unions. The situation in the US is just the opposite. There are more jobs then workers, forcing companies to pay competitive wage and benefits to keep employees. So part of the answer as to whether a union is necessary is determined by the labor market.

 

[Motokid]

I understand the "living wage" issue verses the "minimum wage" issue.....I do..but exactly how much are "you" willing to pay for things? Who, or which job should pay how much and offer what benefits?

What's the living wage for a 16 year old that works part time in the Pet Store I get my dog food from? What's the living wage for the 60ish year old lady in Dunkin Donuts who gives me my Friday morning coffee? What's the living wage for the 28 year old single mother of 2 who works on the manufacturing floor in the plant I work in? What's the living wage of the 53 year old single mother of 4 doing that same job as the 28 year old?

If my coffee cost jumps from $1.69 to $3.00 I stop buying it unless my income follows the same percentage increase.

A Honda Civic goes from costing $18,000 to costing $30,000.

A McDonalds dinner for 4 goes from costing $12.00 to costing $25.00....

If you drastically raise the price of the lowest paying jobs in the country, and you force the additional benefits onto the employeers, you'll either close many places down, or the cost of the goods produced will rise drastically. Which means everybody else will have to get raise to match and then nothing will really change except the poverty level number will rise drastically.

One of the first things that would help America would be a National Health Care System. Take the burden of health insurance costs off the employer. To do that though, taxes will have to be increased to pay for it. So how many American's are going to willingly vote for increaseed taxes?

It's a vicious circle isn't it?

So back to you Union oriented people. Are you supporting labor Unions for all employees in every facet of the working world? Or, are there specific jobs that you think should be Union, and specific jobs that can be non-Union? Does it depend on size of the company? What's the criteria?

 

[Kenny Shovel]

One of the first things that would help America would be a National Health Care System. Take the burden of health insurance costs off the employer. To do that though, taxes will have to be increased to pay for it. So how many American's are going to willingly vote for increaseed taxes?

That's actually what happened in Britain in 1945, we voted for a party bringing in the welfare state and the NHS (national health service) and voted out Churchill at the same time. So the concept of people voting for increased taxes if they are to be spent wisely is not beyond reason.
But your point about America may be correct, as in some ways Britain and America are very similar and in some ways we are very different.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Are you supporting labor Unions for all employees in every facet of the working world?

I'd say some people are lucky, they do a job that pays well, has good benefits, and allows them freedom to pick and choose their employer. For them union membership is probably an option based on their princples. I never really needed to belong to a union, but because of personal reasons choose to be in one.
But many, and it may well be far more people than we realise, lack those options and a union are the only people they feel would be in a position to make a stand on their behalf. How effective they are depends on the union.