What Should a Union Do?

[lawrocket 3]

Here is an issue that is common and will likely be seen many times in the coming months and years.

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Nowadays, much of the issues of workign conditions are controlled by state and federal law. The 8 hour workday? It's law. Meal and rest periods? Law. There is OSHA, EEOC, etc. Unions, in effect, won those battles for everyone. IN that sense, the need for unions for workplace safety and the like is far less than it once was. Not that unions do not still fulfill a good purpose with that!

Today, Unions are mainly devices for higher wages, fewer workign hours and increased benefits. We are seeing now a move by governments to cut costs. Since governments are in the business of providing services, it is fairly easy to see that employee wages and benefits are easily 80 percent of the budgetary costs. Want to cut costs, you have to cut payroll.

Payroll is usually cut in one of the two ways above - (a) lay off a percentage of the employees; or (b) no layoffs but a cuts in pay.

Unions, again, are organizations where employees have banded together for common benefit. Unions are therefore in a bind of how to help the common benefit. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? If so, the common benefit can be that some must be sacrificed.

Or, do the needs of everybody need to be on par with each other? In which case a pay cut for all would be necessary.

Still - I cannot help but think that unions have their OWN interests because everybody and everything does. Unions raid each other. Unions hate each other. Each union wants to increase its membership. Increasing union membership really does little good for a union if the members are of other unions. Like it or not, each union is a corporation and has its own interests at stake, just like any other. This means that a union would also have the consideration of which would be best for its bottom line.

Which is the way unions should deal with this choice? Should a union sacrifice, say, 8 percent of its members so the other 90 percent can have the same job, pay and benefits? Or should the union agree to a 10% pay cut for everyone?

Or, should the union look after itself and figure out how it can maintain itself by maximizing the dues it can receive? Note - I find strong arguments that not only do unions usually go with the third option, but that the third option is the one that makes the most sense.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

I am sure you understand what they should do and what they will do is completly different?


But, I think they will not concede and be forced to suffer layoffs

Then they will loose to the consessions asked for

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Kennedy 0]

Obviously, they should demand higher taxes on anyone with more money that union members, so the government can pay their unions more money and provide better benefits. Then the govt should raises taxes again to give money to private sector union members. Obviously.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Dont look now.. but this country on the way back to that. The Industrialists and businessmen now own the government so those pesky regulations are irrelevant. A minimum wage.. isdamn near no differrent than the slave wages of Dickens day.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Dont look now.. but this country on the way back to that. The Industrialists and businessmen now own the government so those pesky regulations are irrelevant. A minimum wage.. isdamn near no differrent than the slave wages of Dickens day.

I gotta admit

Your rants are getting more nutty and entertaining at the same time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Dont look now.. but this country on the way back to that. The Industrialists and businessmen now own the government so those pesky regulations are irrelevant. A minimum wage.. isdamn near no differrent than the slave wages of Dickens day.

I gotta admit

Your rants are getting more nutty and entertaining at the same time

I gotta admit..... that some people in this country are too fucking stupid to see the strings that are making them dance so nicely

I bet you NEVER saw Cheneys hand up Bushes ass..... obviously he did a terrible job making his lips move hower.

[wmw999 2,584]

It all depends on whether the union sees itself as worthy of existence without the employees. If it has its own existence, then it should do whatever maximizes its dues -- just as companies sometimes make decisions that maximize profits at the expense of other things.

If, on the other hand, it's purely a service organization, then generally the pay-cut-for-everyone is a better option. If, of course, management really is being honest (and they aren't always, just as unions aren't always).

The people making the decisions on how to word votes are often union employees, who stand to lose the most if the dues go down.

It's not great. If we do need unions periodically (and we do), there might not be a better solution.

Remember that the best government in nearly all cases is a benevolent and intelligent dictator. The problem is that you can't guarantee that your dictator will be benevolent and intelligent, so we came up with this representative government idea.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Dont look now.. but this country on the way back to that. The Industrialists and businessmen now own the government so those pesky regulations are irrelevant. A minimum wage.. isdamn near no differrent than the slave wages of Dickens day.

I gotta admit

Your rants are getting more nutty and entertaining at the same time

I gotta admit..... that some people in this country are too fucking stupid to see the strings that are making them dance so nicely

Ya Taking down your mirror might help

But

I will try this once


The fight is not with the private sector unions for the most part

Al least not those like the IBEW or Construction or Pipe fitters and plumbers

Teamsters and the Auto unions may be close to the following

The fight is with the public sector unions Even FDR know what would happen if they were allowed to unionize
Now they have to be dealt with

Remove those rose colored glasses and look out of a windon instead of into the mirror

Last post on the subject to you

I expect the insults to follow but at least I tried

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Dont look now.. but this country on the way back to that. The Industrialists and businessmen now own the government so those pesky regulations are irrelevant. A minimum wage.. isdamn near no differrent than the slave wages of Dickens day.

I gotta admit

Your rants are getting more nutty and entertaining at the same time

I gotta admit..... that some people in this country are too fucking stupid to see the strings that are making them dance so nicely

Ya Taking down your mirror might help

But

I will try this once


The fight is not with the private sector unions for the most part

Al least not those like the IBEW or Construction or Pipe fitters and plumbers

Teamsters and the Auto unions may be close to the following

The fight is with the public sector unions Even FDR know what would happen if they were allowed to unionize
Now they have to be dealt with

Remove those rose colored glasses and look out of a windon instead of into the mirror

Last post on the subject to you

I expect the insults to follow but at least I tried

You and your ilk are seeking to take away something that another group of people managed to negotiate to make your side more powerful...

Hmmm I suppose you cant see that has been what has already been done by those who feed you your TRICKLE>

OH and I call bullshit on that LIE about not being against or after the destruction of priavte Unions let alone public... those who are feeding you want you to get rid of ALL of them as well as all those pesky regulations that allow people to live a life without being poisioned by your employer and their suppliers.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The Industrialists and businessmen now own the government so those pesky regulations are irrelevant.

Yep. That's called "$14 trillion in National Debt." Being in debt to Industrialists, Businessmen and even Communists is generally a bad idea.

While businessmen and industrialists don't run our country (Clinton, Dubya and Obama were all pretty much the antithesis of businessmen and/or industrialists) they definitely have a hand in things. Wouldn't it be nice to tell these people, "We don't need your money anymore. We don't want it."

But a return to Dickens? If that's true then it shows you how fucking little unions do...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>What Should a Union Do?

Advocate for their members. Problem is that their members may be nuts, and want unreasonable concessions. In such cases the unions may, in the end, actually achieve the opposite of what their membership wants (i.e. PATCO.)

To me it's akin to a being lawyer. Do some lawyers do work that releases murderers back on the streets? Yes. Do some lawyers follow their client's wishes even when the client wants to pursue a foolish course of action? Yes. And do some lawyers maximize their fees to the exclusion of all else? Yes. But overall, we are better off that we have a legal system in which lawyers advocate for their clients.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>What Should a Union Do?

Advocate for their members. Problem is that their members may be nuts, and want unreasonable concessions. In such cases the unions may, in the end, actually achieve the opposite of what their membership wants (i.e. PATCO.)

To me it's akin to a being lawyer. Do some lawyers do work that releases murderers back on the streets? Yes. Do some lawyers follow their client's wishes even when the client wants to pursue a foolish course of action? Yes. And do some lawyers maximize their fees to the exclusion of all else? Yes. But overall, we are better off that we have a legal system in which lawyers advocate for their clients.

Bill

What I have personally seen is that the rank n file is not nuts. For the most part the majority are common sense hard working country loving family oriented working class people that want only what is fair and a good wage

The leadership is nuts however

It is a power trip for them

Acess to gov officials and the like

The public sector unions have pushed so far and gotten what they want with Dem officals and they do not want to give that up

I have been on both sides

I have negociated contracts for memebers from the union side

The members are good

The leadership of the union is a corupt as the politions who's aases they lick

Simple

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Advocate for their members.

Of course! But this is the reason for the poll. Advocating for the collective good of its members may mean seeling out many of the individual members.

Quote

To me it's akin to a being lawyer.

Yes. In many ways. The thing is that lawyers are specifically forbidden from representing people whose interests may conflict. If I am a lawyer defending 10 guys, and nine of them want to take a deal to sell out the tenth, well, that's a problem. Or if 9 of them say, "We'll take 10% less" but the tenth says, "No way." As a lawyer I have to withdraw from representing ALL of them.

The union doesn't do that. It is, again, the situation where there is no objective "best for everyone." But a union is predicated upon the belief that, yes, it will do what's best for everybody.

Your PATCO example is a good one. The 10% or so of controllers who chose to go against the union kept their jobs. The others who didn't were canned. I don't think those other 90% thought that the union did a great job. As lawyers, we are often in the situation where we say "Can't do that." If a client decides to risk it all, we tell them the risks and must go forward with what they ask DESPITE our belief in the insanity.

But that will be with just one person. Not several. It's easier to do that.

A great addition, though, bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

If the workers don't like their wages, conditions, hours, benefits, etc, then they are free to look elsewhere for work. Living conditions generally sucked prior to, and during, the industrial revolution for most people. Businessmen and industrialists are not free to abuse employees in the absence of laws or labor unions. There is a natural incentive to treat employees well, in order to keep good employees. Businesses that abuse their employees tend to lose those employees to competition. I was a dues-paying union member for about four years. Today I know better than to pay someone to take away my right to negotiate my own terms of employment.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Here is an issue that is common and will likely be seen many times in the coming months and years.

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Nowadays, much of the issues of workign conditions are controlled by state and federal law. The 8 hour workday? It's law. Meal and rest periods? Law. There is OSHA, EEOC, etc. Unions, in effect, won those battles for everyone. IN that sense, the need for unions for workplace safety and the like is far less than it once was. Not that unions do not still fulfill a good purpose with that!

Fact is, without unions to do battle those conditions would not have come about, and the current support of businesses for anti-union legislation (the Koch brothers spring to mind) strongly suggests to me that once unions lose negotiating power, business will want to return to their "good old (Dickensian) days". Everyone who works for someone else owes a debt to the unions, whether or not they acknowledge it.

This anti-union push is but an opening volley in an attempt to return to the bad old days.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Here is an issue that is common and will likely be seen many times in the coming months and years.

Back in the day, the industrialists and the businessmen held all the cards. Working conditions were bad, wages were low, and things generally sucked. Read anything by Dickens.

Nowadays, much of the issues of workign conditions are controlled by state and federal law. The 8 hour workday? It's law. Meal and rest periods? Law. There is OSHA, EEOC, etc. Unions, in effect, won those battles for everyone. IN that sense, the need for unions for workplace safety and the like is far less than it once was. Not that unions do not still fulfill a good purpose with that!

Fact is, without unions to do battle those conditions would not have come about, and the current support of businesses for anti-union legislation (the Koch brothers spring to mind) strongly suggests to me that once unions lose negotiating power, business will want to return to their "good old (Dickensian) days". Everyone who works for someone else owes a debt to the unions, whether or not they acknowledge it.

This anti-union push is but an opening volley in an attempt to return to the bad old days.

I can agree with that.
I see what is happening now as a moderation of union influence. They had their day of fighting for, and gaining, benefits for the common worker. But they didn't stop there. They got greedy and used their newfound power to force business into contracts that hurt all involved in the long run, called for strikes for things that were not even mentioned in their contracts such as outsourcing to non-union shops and, what i consider to be the worst thing unions ever did, take away the common man's right to negotiate his own wages with the employer of his choosing. Want to join a union and enjoy the benfits of collective bargaining? Fine, join one. But don't tell those who don't want to join you that they can't work.
Hopefully business and the unions will find a middle ground that will work to benefit all involved and not just one side.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[lawrocket 3]

[jgoose71 0]

You've completely missed the target.

Private sector unions good, Public Sector unions bad.

Private sector unions have to strike a balance. They need to balance pay and benefits with company profits. If the company doesn't make a profit, it goes out of business. If they don't pay take care of their employees, they get beat up by the unions. Balance. For the Company to succeed the right amount goes to everyone.

Public sector unions are different. The union demands more from the politician or he doesn't get his election funds. The politician raises taxes to buy more union votes. It's a corrupt cycle. Since they are government employees, this shit isn't even needed.

Just pass laws that the government pay follows the private pay. It solves all kinds of problems. The public sector will be competitive with the private sector for attracting talent, many tax dollars will be saved in union dues, and when a public sector employee isn't getting the job done, we can replace him with one that does. The public deserves what it pays for. Do you think that good teachers get fired so a crappy teacher with seniority continues to teach our kids is fair?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wmw999 2,584]

The SR-71 is infinitely sexier than either unions or satellites.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

The SR-71 is infinitely sexier than either unions or satellites.

Wendy P.

Amen!

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 3,107]

>The leadership of the union is a corupt as the politions who's aases they lick

And are elected (and re-elected) by the good people in the union. Unions, like the public in general, get the representation they deserve, for the most part.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The leadership of the union is a corupt as the politions who's aases they lick

And are elected (and re-elected) by the good people in the union. Unions, like the public in general, get the representation they deserve, for the most part.

Ya

The same uninformed that gave us our current president

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The leadership of the union is a corupt as the politions who's aases they lick

And are elected (and re-elected) by the good people in the union. Unions, like the public in general, get the representation they deserve, for the most part.

With the push by unions to have non secret voting, I'm not convinced this is true, or was in the past. Lot of strong arming in the 'elective' process behind unions.