Vote

[marylou]

Sorry Jay I don't have the patience for debating unions today. I'm trying to learn how to tie a new fly.

[tomtom]

as for why the communist party outlawed unions? because the people might be expecting democracy next. duh.

 

There's nothing democratic about unions.

[olyclimber]

anyway jay, i'll await your response (as long as that takes).

 

i actually suspect that we are not far off from one another...if you have built a profile of what you think my political beliefs are, i would be interested to hear what that is.

 

what i say post here is often done in order to spur the conversation along, not to exemplify my political views. Its true I try to maintain ideals in a less than ideal world. Its true I'm not a big fan of exploitation. It true I believe while humans are doomed to repeat history, i think they can also learn from it. These might be ways we differ, I don't know. I have no doubt you are capable of compassion.

 

i think one idea where we seem to differ is in unions and their place in a capitalist society. i may be errantly reading that difference into your posts, i don't know. i just don't understand why you appear to be so vehemently against unions as a mechanism within a capitalist society, especially when they played such an important roll in our own country...our own country that is held them up to be an example of a successful capitalist society.

 

maybe you believe a "developing" people will never have a use of a union? Can you prove this historically? why did our own country "need" them? Are the changes they brought about negative?

 

of course i have my own opinions (and information or misinformation) about these questions, but I'm very curious about your opinion. i'm also curious as to how these developing countries are going to avoid repeating history.

 

also, remember to vote.

[marylou]

There's nothing democratic about unions.

 

How do ya figure?

[olyclimber]

as for why the communist party outlawed unions? because the people might be expecting democracy next. duh.

 

There's nothing democratic about unions.

 

 

nice sound bite. So, why do you think the Chinese Communist party opposes them?

[tomtom]

Because the Communist Party is effectively the union of the workers.

[olyclimber]

i see...they hate unions because they are one. brilliant.

[tomtom]

There's nothing democratic about unions.

 

How do ya figure?

 

Most unions claim a right of exclusivity. The union has the authority to determine who may be a member of the union and who may not. Most unions assert a right to mandate that only its members, and no others, may be permitted to work at certain jobs. Furthermore, the union contract is exclusive with regard to the employer, an employer is generally not permitted to seek out the services of another labor union or hire another competing labor union even if he is dissatisfied with the performance of the current labor union.

 

This doesn't sound very democratic.

[olyclimber]

at times our country sounds very much like that definition.

[marylou]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the unions themselves, which are most democratic.

[JayB]

anyway jay, i'll await your response (as long as that takes).

 

i actually suspect that we are not far off from one another...if you have built a profile of what you think my political beliefs are, i would be interested to hear what that is.

 

what i say post here is often done in order to spur the conversation along, not to exemplify my political views. Its true I try to maintain ideals in a less than ideal world. Its true I'm not a big fan of exploitation. It true I believe while humans are doomed to repeat history, i think they can also learn from it. These might be ways we differ, I don't know. I have no doubt you are capable of compassion.

 

i think one idea where we seem to differ is in unions and their place in a capitalist society. i may be errantly reading that difference into your posts, i don't know. i just don't understand why you appear to be so vehemently against unions as a mechanism within a capitalist society, especially when they played such an important roll in our own country...our own country that is held them up to be an example of a successful capitalist society.

 

maybe you believe a "developing" people will never have a use of a union? Can you prove this historically? why did our own country "need" them? Are the changes they brought about negative?

 

of course i have my own opinions (and information or misinformation) about these questions, but I'm very curious about your opinion. i'm also curious as to how these developing countries are going to avoid repeating history.

 

also, remember to vote.

 

I'm not sure which response that you are referring to? With regards to the Chinese and Unions - I would agree that the primary reason why the state has maintained the ban is because they are concerned that they would represent a threat to their power. I am not as confident that this constituted the entire reason for the state implementing this "ban" by seizing control of existing unions and outlawing the formation of any others shortly after a revolution largely secured by workers and ostensibly dedicated to promoting their interests above all else. I think that another reason for this move is primarily economic in nature, since in a communist/socialist economy the costs associated with a strike, demands for higher compensation without increases in productivity, walkouts, or any other species of labor unrest are made plain, since they come right out of the state's coffers, rather than a private individual/corporation's profits. I think this is also the reason why you so often see strict statutory limits on awards for medical malpractice in states with single payer systems, but that's another topic.

 

I can clearly understand why the leaders of communist/socialist states would decide that Unions were bad for the state, what's more difficult to understand why the membership of any particular union would think that replacing a market economy with communism/socialism would be good for them. The historical track record here should have been quite sobering by the early 50's, and why this plan remained appealing to anyone who identified both as a leftist and a friend of labor past this point is a mystery to me.

 

To their credit, quite a few workers like Meany understood all of this quite clearly - and were amongst the most determined adversaries of communism. If I recall correctly he also had no small amount of contempt for leftist intellectuals that had no right to call themselves "workers," and wanted to lead the labor movement down that particular path.

 

I don't think that there is "no place" for unions in a capitalist society. I do think that their approach to representing workers is largely misguided and self-defeating, that their efforts to secure above market compensation for their members via legislation that passes these additional costs onto consumers via subsidies, tarriffs, and laws that make certain employers off limits to non-union workers are harmful and wrongheaded.

 

IMO unions would be much better off if they abandoned their efforts to prevent competition via rent-seeking and coercion, and instead focused on making themselves the most competitive participants in the labor marketplace. If unions were known for producing the most highly trained, efficient, reliable, and hard-working members of any trade, and actually made it a point to work with employers to help build the businesses that employ them - employers would be clamoring for union workers. The fact that they do just the opposite is telling.

 

With regards to your political beliefs as they relate to this topic - I've run out of time, but perhaps another occasion will present itself...

[olyclimber]

its ok jay, i didn't really want to do an expose on me. i would just deny it anyway.

[mattp]

I don't think that there is "no place" for unions in a capitalist society. I do think that their approach to representing workers is largely misguided and self-defeating, that their efforts to secure above market compensation for their members via legislation that passes these additional costs onto consumers via subsidies, tarriffs, and laws that make certain employers off limits to non-union workers are harmful and wrongheaded.

 

Forgive me for "cherry picking" your post and responding to only a single point, but this one is particularly nutty. You suggest that unions attempt to "secure above market compensation for their members via legislation that passes these additional costs onto consumers via subsidies, tarriffs, and laws that make certain employers off limits to non-union workers?"

 

Isn't it AT LEAST IF NOT NORE true to say that "large employers seek to institutionalize below market compensation for their employees via legislation that passes ancillary costs onto taxpayers via welfare, military intervention, and other social subsidies as well as laws that make certain employers off limits to union negotiations?"

 

Clearly, you've lost a bit of credibility here, JayB. As with the legal liability "system," we've built a mechanism for society that is in significant part built around a dichotomy that may not always be efficient (plaintiff vs. defendant or employer vs union), but this is in fact OUR system and anybody who looks at or supports only one side of the dichotomy is not in support of "the system." The alternative, in legal liability as well as employment law, is MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL. If unions can't look out for workers' rights, we'll need greater legislation and law enforcement. Surely you'd rather have the United Automobile Workers fighting for pensions and healthcare benefits than a nationwide law, eh?

[JayB]

Military intervention to suppress domestic wages. Feel free to expand on that one. The argument that if it weren't for employers artificially suppressing wages, we'd have no need for welfare is another curious point. Laws that make certain employers of limits to union negotiations? Are you referring to right-to-work laws here? BTW - do you reject the notion that there's any connection between the economic value of a given worker's skillset and their compensation? That seems to be the only manner in which one could make some of the associations that you've set forth here.

 

I don't doubt that employers have the desire to pay below market wages, and would avail themselves of opportunities to do so, but unless one assumes that they can restrict the rights of their workers to seek employment elsewhere and make other employers "off limits," its difficult to see how this is the least bit analagous to the case where certain employers are off limits to individuals who do not wish to join a union. Ultimately one of the best protections for workers is a healthy job market, and if a particular employer is attempting to pay workers less than they can make elsewhere - they face a very difficult task unless they can somehow prevent the said workers from leaving the company and seeking better pay with a new employer. If the said worker has no options that pay any better anywhere else, how is it that employer in question is actually paying *below market* rates?

 

With regards to "our system", you seem to be under the impression that unions are the only portion of "the dichotomy" that acts on behalf of workers, which is hardly the case, unless you are prepared to claim that legislation protecting workers and the various institutions that are charged with enforcing it count for nothing, as does the average worker's right and responsibility to act in their own interest as they understand it.

 

BTW - are you a member of a union? If not, how is it that you are managing to get by?

 

 

[marylou]

Any individual who chooses to work in a union shop and not join the union is legally permitted to do so. This fact is based on a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Beck v. Communication Workers of America. I'm sure you can find more information on this on the interwebs.

 

Please do not continue to tell lies about unions forcing individuals to join.

 

There are several other mistruths and inaccuracies in your posts, but this one is perhaps the most glaring.

[JayB]

Don't have to join, but you do have to pay the dues. The effective difference here is what, exactly?

 

That's on paper. In practice, on the job-sites, you can pretend that workers who don't wish to join the union are subjected to nothing worse than a socratic dialogue, but I think you know perfectly well that this isn't the case.

 

 

[olyclimber]

academia has ruined you jay. come down from your tower of ivory.

[selkirk]

Any individual who chooses to work in a union shop and not join the union is legally permitted to do so. This fact is based on a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Beck v. Communication Workers of America. I'm sure you can find more information on this on the interwebs.

 

Please do not continue to tell lies about unions forcing individuals to join.

 

There are several other mistruths and inaccuracies in your posts, but this one is perhaps the most glaring.

 

I don't know if this is standard, but UW recently adopted a TA's union under the United Auto Workers of all things. I was opposed to it, but that's neither here nor there. Once it was passed everyone had the option to join the union and pay 2% of their salary for union dues, or not join the union and pay 1% anyway. That pretty well irked me.

[rob]

I don't know if this is standard, but UW recently adopted a TA's union under the United Auto Workers of all things. I was opposed to it, but that's neither here nor there. Once it was passed everyone had the option to join the union and pay 2% of their salary for union dues, or not join the union and pay 1% anyway. That pretty well irked me.

 

Sure, from their perspective you were a freeloader, potentially reaping the benefits of a union without wanting to pay full dues. Of course you can see the other side, right?

[archenemy]

Potentially? Our weekends, limits on the hours we can work, child labor laws, safety laws, etc are a direct result of unions.

That doesn't mean you should have to join or pay anything against your will necessarily, but just to put it in perspective.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Potentially? Our weekends, limits on the hours we can work, child labor laws, safety laws, etc are a direct result of unions.

That doesn't mean you should have to join or pay anything against your will necessarily, but just to put it in perspective.

 

yeah, but those things are now all a done deal and taken for granted.

 

I think Rob means the benefits you *could* reap if the union gets you a pay raise, better benefits, etc.

 

 

[archenemy]

Yeah, I got that. I just think that most people don't know anything about the history of unions and only know them as a bad word. I think folks don't realize how much unions have accomplished in the past so they have proven to be very effective. Whether they are appropriate for this day and age is another discussion, but I always like starting out with a historical perspective on things.

[marylou]

Don't have to join, but you do have to pay the dues. The effective difference here is what, exactly?

 

You only pay for representation and contract stewardship/negotiation, stuff like that. Not for anything big picture like political stuff outside of your local.

 

That's on paper. In practice, on the job-sites, you can pretend that workers who don't wish to join the union are subjected to nothing worse than a socratic dialogue, but I think you know perfectly well that this isn't the case.

 

Really? Are you a Beck Objector? I work with a few and nothing bad ever happens to them as a result of it.

 

 

[Bug]

Yeah, I got that. I just think that most people don't know anything about the history of unions and only know them as a bad word. I think folks don't realize how much unions have accomplished in the past so they have proven to be very effective. Whether they are appropriate for this day and age is another discussion, but I always like starting out with a historical perspective on things.

Historically speaking, unions have been a huge benefit ALL workers. But Jimmy Hoffa didn't polish the image. Union heads have become the "Bruthas" of corporate Heads. They fight on different sides but basically seem primarily concerned with power. The littl eguys are just pawns.

They need to be cleaned up.

[tvashtarkatena]

JayB pontificating and touting his expertise about a type of organization that he's had no personal experience with whatsoever?

 

I just don't believe it.