Customers won't give you, hapless employee, job security if your employers can easily replace you with someone cheaper because you have a flimsy (or no!) contract, nor will customers help you with disputes with management, or wrongful termination, or promotion from within, or even the too-little-emphasized increased potential for synergy between the ranks that unions afford, or any of the many other things that unions afford.
Customers might help prevent a company going out of business, and that, to be sure, is good for job security. But a company that's flourishing customerwise can still have rapacious or simply bad management.
You shouldn't need a contract if you're adding value to the organization. If you can get replaced by someone cheaper, then you weren't worth what you were getting. Why the heck should a business pay more for the same outputs? If you're adding more value than you cost, your job is always safe. The union mentality is exactly the reason American manufacturing has left for cheaper pastures. Union employees aren't about adding value, they're about protecting their own ass rather that striving to find ways to add value to the organization.
Business owners do not have an obligation to keep everyone employed, they have an obligation to make a profit, if there's no profit, then they won't be able to employ anyone for very long.
Good employees are an asset to any company. You don't get "wrongfully" terminated if you are adding value of a company.
I will never hire union labor ever. I would close down a business before I submitted to the extortion of unions. If I hire people, I treat them really well because they add value not because a contract says I must. Google employees aren't unionized -- Google understands that to attract the best talent you have to treat people well. Google employees don't need a union -- they know that if they're providing value, their jobs are very secure. It's the lower-skilled workers with chips on their shoulders that are the first to cry about needing a contract to "protect" their rights.
Contracts protect the employees that strive to do the minimal possible under the terms of the contract. Unions have made employees interchangeable because you get paid based on your job title and seniority, not necessarily the value you bring to the organization. The big tragedy is that in union shops, when layoffs happen it's the junior guys that go first, even if they're better workers than the more senior. It's disgusting that years on the job mean more than actual job output. Unions had their place before OSHA came along, but now they are corrupt labor monopolies where the bosses get paid millions each year cronyism and corruption are the norm. If you don't like a company, you're free to quit, but in closed-shop states, if you don't like the union, too bad, you have to be a member (or pay the dues) if you want to be employed in that field in your state. Detroit is 1993 Sarajevo because of unions, while North Carolina is doing pretty well. The difference is the unions.
> If you can get replaced by someone cheaper, then you weren't worth what you were getting.
Spoken as someone with specialist skills that are in sufficient demand and business critical enough.
> I will never hire union labor ever. I would close down a business before I submitted to the extortion of unions.
So in other words, clearly people need contracts - and some will need unions -, since you're making it very clear you have preconceived notions about employee behaviour based on external factors that have nothing to do with their job performance, and you're not the only one.
Unions were formed because people realized their negotiating positions were excessively weak compared to the employer-side who held all the cards. E.g. getting to the 8 hour working day, for example, took American unions many decades of struggle to achieve (and the rest of the world commemorated that struggle by making May 1st the international day for workers demonstrations in direct response to the Haymarket massacre)
> Contracts protect the employees that strive to do the minimal possible under the terms of the contract.
Contracts also protects great employees of employers that strive to do the minimal possible under the terms of the contract.
Somehow you seem to expect that employees should trust you implicitly.
> If you don't like a company, you're free to quit, but in closed-shop states, if you don't like the union, too bad, you have to be a member (or pay the dues) if you want to be employed in that field in your state.
So why are you making your arguments about unions in general when you then go on to describe features of unions in some locations that are by no means universal?
There's no doubt that there are unions that have managed to push things too far, but your argumentation is like saying all companies are bad because some companies have been abusive.
Unions were formed because people realized their negotiating positions were excessively weak compared to the employer-side who held all the cards. E.g. getting to the 8 hour working day, for example, took American unions many decades of struggle to achieve (and the rest of the world commemorated that struggle by making May 1st the international day for workers demonstrations in direct response to the Haymarket massacre)
Unions (and companies, countries, etc.) can't ride the wave of their past successes forever. Saying that unions were a good thing 100 years ago is not an argument that they still are.
Comparing Google to auto manufacturers that employ mostly union labor is not fair because the supply and demand curve for employees is completely different. When a potential employee goes into an interview at Google he/she knows that they are in short supply and high demand. This gives him/her leverage to negotiate salary, work conditions, etc. Google provides such a great work environment because they know this and are proactively meeting the demands of the candidates they're trying to attract.
Most employees at auto manufacturers do not have this same leverage. They can't threaten to leave for higher salaries or better working conditions because they are in large supply, small demand. Forming a union gives them this leverage so that they can negotiate at the same level as their employer.
I feel like the negativity towards unions is a result of some recently holding more power than the employers and getting unsustainable pensions and other extravagant benefits. But when the balance of power is closer then unions have been successful and often in necessary in making sure that employees are working in a safe environment, getting paid a living wage and generally not being taken advantage of.
TLDR; Labor unions are not all bad/good. They simply give employees the same leverage as their employers in industries where the supply for workers outnumbers the demand. It's not good for that balance to get out of hand in either direction.
Wages are just part of the supply / demand curve. At the high end it's worth a lot of managment overhead to keep people happy, at the low end there is little incentive to do so.
Let's stipulate to the first sentence of your comment (and ignore everything that comes after it). If you're adding value to an organization, you shouldn't need a contract.
Wonderful! There you are, being a positive influence on your organization, knowing that you shouldn't need a contract. But! Suppose some manager doesn't recognize that you're being a positive influence? Or just wants to throw his weight around? Certainly, a person in a position of power who wants to throw his weight around shouldn't target someone who's a benefit to his organization. But perhaps he's perverse, or doesn't care, or views you as a threat, or (again) has made a mistake in his estimation of who's "adding value" and who isn't. You shouldn't need a contract in part because your superiors shouldn't do that kind of thing. But hey! They might do it anyway! The wonderful thing about being contract-free, or in an at-will employment state (i.e. almost any state) is that there's no such thing as wrongful termination and you have no recourse if you're fired---"but I was adding value!", in particular, is not going to be effective. In this sublunary world, you'd have to be delusional to maintain that if you're adding value, you don't need a contract.
Actually, I can't resist; let's look at the rest of the first paragraph in this light. How do you know that union employees in, say, Flint, were uninterested in "adding value" to the manufacturers who shut down the factories? People working manufacturing jobs---a skilled trade, you know---take pride in their work and I'm willing to assert, just as blithely as you were willing to assert the opposite, that they'd be plenty willing to try to improve the product, improve processes, etc., if they were but asked (and lots of improvements can, indeed, come from the rank-and-file in that way). It's true, of course, that when residents of Michigan are asked to add value to the company by accepting wages no greater than those commanded in Mexico, they are likely to balk.
> Suppose some manager doesn't recognize that you're being a positive influence?
Then one of you is wrong.
Yes, bad managers make bad decisions. A contract doesn't protect you from bad managers - it merely makes it easier to stay around to be subject to their badness. Why do you think that's worth something?
Contracts actually make bad managers look better that they would otherwise. Yes, bad managers survive longer when unions are involved. Why do you want that?
Life's too short to work for a bad manager. Of course, if all managers are bad (for you), maybe they're not the problem.
> People working manufacturing jobs---a skilled trade, you know---take pride in their work and I'm willing to assert, just as blithely as you were willing to assert the opposite, that they'd be plenty willing to try to improve the product, improve processes, etc., if they were but asked (and lots of improvements can, indeed, come from the rank-and-file in that way).
We can test that hypothesis by looking at what they demanded through their union representatives. Care to predict the result of said "look"?
I'll save you the trouble - they didn't demand anything to improve product quality or increase productivity.
On a related note, the head of one of the US teachers unions said that he'd start caring about kids when they started paying dues.
I don't want to mar the conversation with a pro or anti union debate. Let's take it out.
You have to turn those "what ifs" into "so whats" because there is always the chance that a manager is going to fire you unjustly. If the organization is setup properly, the loss of your employment would adversely affect your department's profit numbers. Since the manager is responsible for those numbers, one can assume there will be repercussions for a decrease.
This all assumes that the organization is a well-oiled machine, but since a vast majority aren't, you have to assume that you will be fired for any reason. The good thing is that if you can provide value to one company, you may have a good chance at providing value to another company (especially if it can be quantified on a resume). These are known as transferrable skills, and they're what good employees retain in order to get a high-paying job.
American manufacturing didn't leave. The US manufacturing output has doubled since '75, and it's bigger than Germany, France, Brazil and India combined.
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. I don't know what Welch said, but as it was characterized by the grandparent, Welch's statement is stupid, for exactly the reasons kenko explained.
If your employer has been infested by unions and there is a competitor, customers will rush to the competitor and your union will be of no help. Even if your union has managed to infest all your competitors in the same country, imports will ruin you all.
If there's two supermarkets in town and one is unionized, the other one will probably be better for the customer in some way, usually because they'll have lower prices. Customers either don't care about unions or slightly favor them, but the end results of a union do drive customers away.
I don't think it's at all arguable that unions--at least American unions--are detrimental to the health of the businesses their employees work for.
Fundamentally, these unions are parasitic. They treat the wealth of its host as a given and find ways to extract more of that wealth. The flaw behind this is that the wealth of a company is not a given--it depends upon the customers, and the more you try to extract wealth from the company, the greater the impact on the customer. Either that, or the company just goes flat broke[1]. A company that doesn't have these additional costs and distractions is more able to focus on the customer, or at the very least can do just as good a job without going flat broke. The experience of US automakers vs foreign competitors, or Boeing vs Airbus, or unionized retail vs. Wal-Mart and Amazon, bears this out.
Unions are simply a balancing force to that of the management whose sole purpose is to extract as much profit from the enterprise. Yes, a lot of bad things can happen when unions gain too much power. But that doesn't mean unions are necessarily evil. On the contrary, they are a necessary evil, as a balancing force of the evil of the profit incentive.
The free market generally does not have the power to correct for overreaching management. In many cases the signal necessary to make a judgement is not propagated to consumers, at least not in such a way that it will cause a change in consumers purchasing decisions. This is where unions are necessary to correct against overbearing and unrealistic management. Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution.
> Unions are simply a balancing force to that of the management whose sole purpose is to extract as much profit from the enterprise.
You say "profit" like it's a bad thing. It's not, it's what funds new good things. And, reducing costs is a good thing. It produces "more".
BTW - Management's goal is to extract as much profit for managers, not for the enterprise.
One big problem with the corporate model is that no one has a long term interest. No one at GM ever got fired for agreeing to the contracts that broke the company. Instead, folks did get fired for not giving in.
> Profit is "evil" here because it creates incentives for all sorts of bad things. This is what necessitates a balancing force.
Even if that's true, unions aren't a balancing force to the "incentives for all sorts of bad things". The only role that unions will play here is in trying to get their cut.
Actually, that's wrong. Unions will often actively help commit said "bad things" because they'll benefit. For example, unions are often quite protectionist.
Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good". Everyone always loves to simplify things down to their pet ideology.
> Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good".
The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit.
Since that evil produces more money for the company, you need an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut.
Unions are not new, so if you're going to suggest that they're useful for doing something, you should have actual examples of them doing said something.
Decreasing the company's profit doesn't necessarily equate to a union taking its "cut" (of the profits). Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment. Here the union is a check against a corporation's motive to sacrifice work environment for profit.
> Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment.
All of those things are the union (members) taking more of the profit.
"work environment" (as you're using it) isn't some abstract good that the unions are protecting. It's "what do I have to do for the money I make?"
Changing that balance one way is reducing the union members' take. Changing it the other way is increasing the union members' take, that is, trying to reduce a company's profit by increasing the union members' share of the revenue.
We're still waiting for "an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut."
Not sure why you're trying to be snarky. I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money. I clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members. If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit", then so be it. Nitpicking on minutia (definition of clearly defined words) is a waste of everyone's time.
>The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit.
The specific evil being detrimental work environment, its obvious that unions are a balancing for to that.
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm trying to point out that your thinking is muddled.
> I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money.
And the things that you listed were benefits received by union members, benefits that cost money, which reduces profit. What do you think the same money for less work is?
> clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members.
No one is suggesting that unions don't benefit their members. Your claim was that unions were combatting some evils. I asked for an example, and you started ranting about profits, so I pointed out that the only effect that unions have on profits is to increase expenses that directly benefit their members.
> If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit
Work environment is expense. Profit is revenue - expense. Which statement do you disagree with?
Some work environment details affect quality and/or productivity and some don't. Of the former, some provide more increased revenue than their costs while others don't.
Do you really want to argue that unions only ask for work environment and compensation things that "pay for themselves"? (Given your model of management, unions don't have to ask for those things.)
If you've got examples of unions acting other than in their own self-interest, let's see them instead of vague theories.
How can you be so certain that unions act a certain way yet not have any examples?
I honestly have no idea what you're ranting about at this point. It's hard to have a discussion when your bias distorts everything I say.
>Work environment is expense. Profit is revenue - expense. Which statement do you disagree with?
I have no problem with the definition of "profit" you used, I already made this clear. All that matters is that we're on the same page.
>No one is suggesting that unions don't benefit their members. Your claim was that unions were combatting some evils
I clearly defined what "evil" I spoke of that unions are a balancing force against--"overbearing" management. Things like dangerous work environments, extreme work hours, lack of health insurance, etc. It is clear that unions are a balancing force to this "evil". If you disagree with this, then provide an argument. This is the only point I've made. I never claimed that this wasn't in the self-interest of its members. Your points are completely tangential to anything I've said.
> Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution.
I'll agree with that, but I think regulation and Big Government™ are a better solution and unions have outlived their usefulness. You can tell because most people who advocate for unions just rest on past glories.
I can agree with your point. Government perhaps is smarter and better equipped to deal with these types of issues than it was in the past when unions were necessary. The follow up question to this is: how did Government become smarter about labor issues? Was it unions that brought these issues to mainstream attention? If we do away unions, who could adequately fill this role? Unions are special because they have direct access to information that is generally lost to anyone outside of the company's walls. Any entity that filled the role of watchdog would need access to this information.
Oh come on. I was hoping it was clear that I was using the word "evil" as generic label for the negative side of any dichotomy. I don't personally believe in actual evil anyways (does anyone?).
I don't personally believe that overreaching management is necessarily bad for consumers. I was just trying to preempt what seemed to be a logical reply given philwelch's previous comments.
As to why the market won't necessarily correct for it, is because many times overreaching management is effective (at least in the short term). Degrade working conditions to cut costs and the consumer benefits. The information about how these lower prices were brought to the consumer is usually lost in the process. That signal simply doesn't reach all interested parties, and thus they aren't able to adjust their behavior in response. Some situations it can work, for example a business where customer service is a large part of the experience. The signal of overreaching management does eventually filter down to the consumer.
Most likely the information doesn't reach the consumer because the typical consumer doesn't care.
There are often niche producers who target the small fraction of consumers who care, and market their wares in part based on this. For example, see Fair Trade coffee producers (appealing to do-gooders) or American Apparel (appealing to US nationalists).
Your claim that markets can't transmit this information to interested consumers seems incorrect.
> That signal simply doesn't reach all interested parties,
Sure it does. I, the customer, see both the price and the service. If I'm willing to pay more for more service, I can do so.
And, this signal also reaches the employees as well. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. If you're right about how valuable your service is, customers will make the same choice. If you're wrong....
What about products that have no aspect of customer service, say canned tuna? The point is that there are classes of products with no meaningful level of customer service to the final consumer. Or, any consideration of service is trumped by lower cost. In both of these cases the market will not correct for overbearing management.
"If there's two supermarkets in town and one is unionized, the other one will probably be better for the customer in some way, usually because they'll have lower prices."
> But a company that's flourishing customerwise can still have rapacious or simply bad management.
If true, so what?
You're assuming that this undefined "good management" has value that isn't reflected in the customer experience. That's simply not true. Even if the bad management only directly affects employees, they affect customers. (Good employees leave unless shackled by seniority rules, which is the only rational way to run a union.)
Customers won't give you, hapless employee, job security if your employers can easily replace you with someone cheaper because you have a flimsy (or no!) contract, nor will customers help you with disputes with management, or wrongful termination, or promotion from within, or even the too-little-emphasized increased potential for synergy between the ranks that unions afford, or any of the many other things that unions afford.
Customers might help prevent a company going out of business, and that, to be sure, is good for job security. But a company that's flourishing customerwise can still have rapacious or simply bad management.