The pros and cons of unions?

[rich8483]

So with all the union talk, what are the pros and of course cons of labor unions. both at the employee level and employer level, and the effect on the economy as a whole?

this is not meant to be a union bashing thread but im sure it will become one.

in short, if you were in a conversation with a stranger, what would you list as the reasons that you do not like unions?
or the reasons you like them as there are some here that might.

and no "i just hate them" crap. just the actual facts.

 

[jgreiner]

So with all the union talk, what are the pros and of course cons of labor unions. both at the employee level and employer level, and the effect on the economy as a whole?

this is not meant to be a union bashing thread but im sure it will become one.

in short, if you were in a conversation with a stranger, what would you list as the reasons that you do not like unions?
or the reasons you like them as there are some here that might.

and no "i just hate them" crap. just the actual facts.

No one should be forced to join something they choose not to join, simply because of where they work. If the unions have so much to offer, they should be able to stand on their own and attract members, without FORCING people to pay in.

I've heard the argument a 1000 times, that folks should not be able to work in jobs where the union negotiates a contract. fine. Then the union doesn't need to represent non-members. I have no problem with that.

It needs to be a CHOICE....not a forced issue.

 

[Whitsettd8]

Unions are a necessary evil. Unions help to regulate pay in industry and protect workers from unethical business practice. At a time when corporate greed is at its highest there needs to be something to keep things in check. Now I’m not saying Billy Bob at the Ford assembly line needs to be paid $35 bucks an hour to put 4 bolts in a hitch and fasten it to a frame. There’s guys at Jeff Boat sitting in 4X4 steel tube when it’s 98 degrees outside holding a 4k degree torch 8 hours a day and barely getting 15 an hour only because they have a union and can stop management from bringing in illegal’s to work for 12 bucks an hour. There is greed in every aspect of business unions and non I think there essential to a free market economy.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Non-union shops are dangerous places to work. Things are much safer at union shops. I speak from personal experience in GE Fort Wayne (voluntary union shop 1969-1974) and in several foundries and machine shops in NE Indiana during the 1980s and 1990s. People are forced to do dangerous things in non-union shops just to keep their jobs. I have seen it, and experienced it. I had the ability to quit, but my co-workers were desperate and could not quit their jobs for reasons such as those presented in paragraph 3 below.

Non-union shops place greater demands, often unrealistic ones, on the employee. When the employee fails to meet those unrealistic expectations, they are fired. Again, personal experience. Note that I was never fired for these reasons. I witnessed it happen to co-workers.

Non-union shops abuse illegal immigrants and welfare recipients by forcing them to work in evil conditions by threatening to report them to immigration authorities or have their welfare benefits canceled. Local firm in Fort Wayne actually did this with the cooperation of members of the Fort Wayne City Council in the 1980s.

Union shops, however, are not perfect. During my time at GE, I was forced to do the work assigned to union members who consistently showed up drunk, hung over, exhausted from partying all night, etc. They were unable to do their work, refused to do their work, or just walked away for a "pit stop" and did not come back until dinner break or until time to quit for the evening. Company could not fire them because the union protected them—in spite of my frank statements to the union steward.

Union shops prevent a worker from doing his/her job to the best of ability. In two production jobs I was able to complete my rate (required production) for the shift in less than half of an eight-hour shift. As a new man on the job, I was told to stop breaking the rate or I would be shot. I argued that if I could not work, I would be caught loafing and fired. I was advised I would never be fired for loafing, the union would not allow it. I replied that I was bored and did not want to spend the shift hiding from the foreman. I wanted to do my job, earn my pay and go home. The union steward showed me his revolver. I learned to loaf and hide from the foreman like all my union brothers. I got my degree and left the shop as soon as possible.

Conclusion: Unions are a necessary evil. Without the union, the evil corporations will oppress the worker in evil ways. However, the union can become an evil oppressor of greater evil than the company. Balance is needed. Unions are needed as a check on on the unlimited power of the company. There must also be limitations on unlimited power of the union.

A system of checks an balances, similar to what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers and written into the US Constitution, is desirable—difficult to establish and even more difficult to maintain, but desirable.

 

[KLB]

Non-union shops are dangerous places to work. Things are much safer at union shops. I speak from personal experience in GE Fort Wayne (voluntary union shop 1969-1974) and in several foundries and machine shops in NE Indiana during the 1980s and 1990s. People are forced to do dangerous things in non-union shops just to keep their jobs. I have seen it, and experienced it. I had the ability to quit, but my co-workers were desperate and could not quit their jobs for reasons such as those presented in paragraph 3 below.

Non-union shops place greater demands, often unrealistic ones, on the employee. When the employee fails to meet those unrealistic expectations, they are fired. Again, personal experience. Note that I was never fired for these reasons. I witnessed it happen to co-workers.

Non-union shops abuse illegal immigrants and welfare recipients by forcing them to work in evil conditions by threatening to report them to immigration authorities or have their welfare benefits canceled. Local firm in Fort Wayne actually did this with the cooperation of members of the Fort Wayne City Council in the 1980s.

This is a gross generalization. The company I work for is totally non union manufacturing, and has a great safety record. We run mines and factories all over North America, including two in Indiana.

They preach safety at all levels of the company, and pay a good wage with benefits to their employees. All of this without the overhead of a union.

 

[Westside]

This thread will not end well.

The unions that are good and provide an asset to both employer and employee will survive and become stronger while the "bad union" that are just a burden to both employer and employee will wither and die.

 

[88GT]

Unions are a necessary evil. Unions help to regulate pay in industry and protect workers from unethical business practice. At a time when corporate greed is at its highest there needs to be something to keep things in check. Now I’m not saying Billy Bob at the Ford assembly line needs to be paid $35 bucks an hour to put 4 bolts in a hitch and fasten it to a frame. There’s guys at Jeff Boat sitting in 4X4 steel tube when it’s 98 degrees outside holding a 4k degree torch 8 hours a day and barely getting 15 an hour only because they have a union and can stop management from bringing in illegal’s to work for 12 bucks an hour. There is greed in every aspect of business unions and non I think there essential to a free market economy.

I hate unions because they are the epitome of coercion in the market. And therefore an opponent of freedom.

To the bolded: Corporate greed is what keeps you and every other W2 stooge employed. You should be kissing the ground the business owner walks on for having the desire and chutzpah to create a company that produces a product that people want so you have the opportunity to earn a wage. His greed is your paycheck. Nothing else.


*Not to imply that collective bargaining is antithetical to freedom in and of itself. Just the strong-arm tactics of organized unionization that impedes the business owner's ability to conduct business.

 

[steveh_131]

*Not to imply that collective bargaining is antithetical to freedom in and of itself. Just the strong-arm tactics of organized unionization that impedes the business owner's ability to conduct business.

Out of curiosity, what strong-arm tactics would you include in this that do not involve government coercion/enforcement? (If any)

 

[radonc73]

I can say that when the union was on strike at this hospital there were people blocking the driveways and trying to make it harder to come to work for the non union employees. How ever the place was never cleaner than when the union housekeepers were on strike.
I also think that charging someone to have a job and using that money to buy votes from politicians blindly seems wrong.

 

[Bapak2ja]

This is a gross generalization. The company I work for is totally non union manufacturing, and has a great safety record. We run mines and factories all over North America, including two in Indiana.

They preach safety at all levels of the company, and pay a good wage with benefits to their employees. All of this without the overhead of a union.

Glad to hear it. Glad there are some companies out there who treat their employees with honor. I did not assert that every company was evil and I made no sweeping generalization. I simply stated that these are the extremes that do exist. I concluded that developing a balance between the two extremes is a wise course.

 

[88GT]

Out of curiosity, what strong-arm tactics would you include in this that do not involve government coercion/enforcement? (If any)

Primarily there is but one: the prevention of others from seeking employment at terms considered less than the ones for which the collective bargaining process was initiated. IOW, not allowing the dreaded scabs to work. ETA: government role is moot to this particular part of the discussion. Government involvement is another layer of coercion, but it isn't the only one.

Just because one group of people refuses to work for less than $X an hour or in extreme conditions or both, doesn't mean others should be prohibited from doing so. I know why they do it. And it's a sure sign that the wage being offered is not "too low," "unfair," or "dishonest." It's also why I consistently view all arguments about union-negotiated wages as extortion.

 

[steveh_131]

Primarily there is but one: the prevention of others from seeking employment at terms considered less than the ones for which the collective bargaining process was initiated. IOW, not allowing the dreaded scabs to work. ETA: government role is moot to this particular part of the discussion. Government involvement is another layer of coercion, but it isn't the only one.

By preventing them, do you mean actually physically blocking them from the entrance, or physical force/violence? Things like that? Or are there other methods that they use to accomplish this?

 

[dross]

By preventing them, do you mean actually physically blocking them from the entrance, or physical force/violence? Things like that? Or are there other methods that they use to accomplish this?

That has certainly happened in the past. Violence against those who cross picket lines has been very common.

 

[red_zr24x4]

I also think that charging someone to have a job and using that money to buy votes from politicians blindly seems wrong.

My union dues DO NOt get donated to political funds, MY dues go to paying the salires of the women in the office, my BA'S and to run the training center. If I want money donated to a political fund I have to sign up for that.
How do I know? becaused when asked to sign up for it I told them to kiss my a$$.
The goverment runs checks on the books to see where the money is comeing from. Just like they do to see if a business is donating to much to a candidate for "favors"

 

[steveh_131]

That has certainly happened in the past. Violence against those who cross picket lines has been very common.

Yeah, I've read several examples.

I suppose what I'm curious about is if there are any tactics used by unions that people think are anti-liberty or anti-free market, but don't actually involve initiations of force such as violence, etc.

Do you welcome any union activities that are within the bounds of individual property rights and liberties?

I really have no point, just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. I think most of us agree that government-sponsored or enforced union activities are a bad thing, and activities that violate property rights or involve force, etc. Is that where you would draw the line?

 

[goinggreyfast]

Isn't this a bit played out???

 

[dross]

Unions are a necessary evil. Unions help to regulate pay in industry and protect workers from unethical business practice. At a time when corporate greed is at its highest there needs to be something to keep things in check. Now I’m not saying Billy Bob at the Ford assembly line needs to be paid $35 bucks an hour to put 4 bolts in a hitch and fasten it to a frame. There’s guys at Jeff Boat sitting in 4X4 steel tube when it’s 98 degrees outside holding a 4k degree torch 8 hours a day and barely getting 15 an hour only because they have a union and can stop management from bringing in illegal’s to work for 12 bucks an hour. There is greed in every aspect of business unions and non I think there essential to a free market economy.

Unions artifically raise pay which helps only that small group who gets that pay. Economics is a difficult subject which explains why there's such widespread ignorance of it. I think ignorance of basic economics is one of the leading causes of us being in the financial position we're in as a country. That said, I'll attempt to explain.

Unions, which have a bargaining advantage granted to them by law, in exchange for their votes, artificially raise the price of labor. This benefits the union workers who collect these higher wages. At least in the short term, it does. In the long term it causes jobs to leave the country.

At the same time, this raising of wages hurts everyone else. First, it causes higher costs in goods and services. Second, it sometimes causes wages to be raised artificially in non union industries. This contributes to high costs for everyone, but it also harms workers whose labor isn't worth the going rate, which has been artificially elevated.

So, if my labor is worth $15 an hour, but the wages for my type of work have been artificially raised to $20 an hour, I'm going to have a very difficult time finding a job. If, however, the market were allowed to operate freely for labor, I might be able to sell my labor at a lower price, giving the employer an incentive to take a chance on me.

On the opposite side of the coin, if the going rate for my type of work is $20 an hour, but I'm a superstar whose labor is worth $25 an hour, I won't be able to get that, because union contracts prevent rewarding high production in favor of seniority.

Another economic principle: Prices are information, nothing more. The price of something just tells you what its worth on the market. No one sets a price or a wage, which is just another type of price. Something is worth what it's worth, and what it's worth is what someone is willing to pay. Everyone wants to pay the least amount possible and get the most for it. When a price is artificially raised or artificially lowered, that doesn't change what it's worth, it just causes the market to react in some unforeseen way to compensate.

So, unions are bad for everyone in the long run, and bad for everyone but the union members in the short run.

Let me make it clear, though. I'm not opposed to unions one bit. I'm just opposed to the laws that give them a negotiating advantage. Take away the laws protecting them, and I think unions are a great thing.

 

[88GT]

By preventing them, do you mean actually physically blocking them from the entrance, or physical force/violence? Things like that? Or are there other methods that they use to accomplish this?

How else would one prevent someone from taking a job? I'm not trying to be snarky. But isn't the whole premise of the free market based on the ideal that people may come and go in their transactions with employers and employees as they see fit and any attempt by a third party to circumvent that free association is the use of force, even if it isn't physical force?

Physical force such as blocking the entrance or restraint is the obvious. But what about the force of coercion and threats? It doesn't have to be physical to be force.

Collective bargaining is fine. It's the mutual agreement of all parties involved to unite behind one message and present a single front to the opposing side. United we stand kind of stuff. Increased buying power. The employment version of Costco. But their power to negotiate should end at the perimeter of their group. If they can't convince everybody (every relevant individual that is) that their position is righteous, then they need to accept less than they are demanding in return for keeping their jobs or risk losing the jobs all together when somebody else does.

Disrupting the relationship of individuals outside their organization is unacceptable in the free market.

 

[88GT]

Yeah, I've read several examples.

I suppose what I'm curious about is if there are any tactics used by unions that people think are anti-liberty or anti-free market, but don't actually involve initiations of force such as violence, etc.

Do you welcome any union activities that are within the bounds of individual property rights and liberties?

I really have no point, just curious to hear some opinions on the topic. I think most of us agree that government-sponsored or enforced union activities are a bad thing, and activities that violate property rights or involve force, etc. Is that where you would draw the line?

The only acceptable tactics a union could employ is to refuse to work. Even making it impossible for the employer to conduct business by direct or indirect action other than refusal to work is out of bounds. We arrest people for coercion of that level in any other area. Why is the labor market any different?

 

[steveh_131]

The only acceptable tactics a union could employ is to refuse to work. Even making it impossible for the employer to conduct business by direct or indirect action other than refusal to work is out of bounds. We arrest people for coercion of that level in any other area. Why is the labor market any different?

It shouldn't be. We're certainly in agreement.

I was just curious if they employ any tactics that might be seen as more of a gray area than directly blocking/attacking, etc. Sounds like they mostly don't.

ETA: And let me add my reasoning. Unions are a problem, so my instinct is to wonder about the solution. The obvious one is to remove government involvement of all kinds. And, of course, properly prosecute those who employ violence or physical force.

So my question mostly revolves around any other tactics that don't fall into these categories that should be discussed. Does that make more sense?