General Union Stuffs (was: Scott Walker, Union Buster)

[Callie Del Noire]

Here is my personal experience with a non-union/union shop environment.

I was hired on to work Aircraft Maintenance here in Jax. The Jax shop had voted to remain non-union while their sister shop in Texas went union. (The perks of having like 19 retired Navy Chiefs who are making mad retirement AND a salary  who don't want it..they didn't want it and they persuaded enough of the rest before I was hired)

The two work centers came under control of a new staff, when the contract was turned over to them.

The Jax work center got hammered on the change over. I got let go as result of a miscommunication, I consider it my fault but my coworkers said a union rep could have cleared things up and I'd have kept my job. The shop leads were all told TWO days before change over that they were to simply be workers and that they would be training their replacements. From what I heard from the Texas workcenter, that didn't happen there.

They, the new management, increased the deployment cycle by a factor of two while eliminating ALL the travel perks. Something they said they wouldn't do during the turnover phase. That is a loss of something 2 1/2 to 4 grand per worker. Incentive pays of all sorts were being axed and supposedly they were trying to roll back pay rates to everyone in the Jax work space. (an 'accounting accident' that didn't happen in Texas.)

[Lyell]

So rather than contact a lawyer they accepted what happened. Were the agreements in writing and notarized? A union isn't required for those things, by the way.

"The final election, conducted last week, delivered the most stunning verdict. Delta workers at airports and reservation centers rejected the IAM, 70-30 percent. In November, flight attendants voted against unionization, 52-48 percent. Ramp (or “under the wing”) employees voted not to join the IAM, 53-47 percent. And maintenance workers turned down the IAM more decisively, 72-28 percent.

Sensing defeat, labor unions had earlier decided not to attempt to unionize four other groups of employees: mechanics, technical writers, meteorologists, and “simulated technicians.” It was a clean sweep for Delta and shocking to labor organizers. As a result, 17,000 former Northwest employees who had been union members will become nonunion once the election results have been certified.

That may take a while because the unions have filed formal complaints that Delta interfered with the election. They are seeking a new election. Unions do this routinely when they lose an election. They are poor losers. How did Delta thwart the unions? The company pointed out its pay and benefits are 10 percent to 15 percent above those of unionized employees who had worked for Northwest and have been for years. Higher pay, better benefits, no union dues—that was the argument." -The Washington Postal

[Callie Del Noire]

You know what a lawyer would tell me?

"You're shit out of luck. It's a miscommunication but your name is here on the bottom line. So you're out of a job. You can't reapply till the 10 year contract is over and there is nothing you can do about it. We, as individuals AND as a group, brought up the issues we had to the transition coordinator and he LIED to us. REPEATEDLY. Till the day he turned over to the transition team, got his his lexus and drove away.

We had NO choice. It was 'like or lump it'. And they knew it. 

Or in my case, get canned with no avenue of appeal. The transition coordinator could have reissued the papers but he wanted to be a dick. So I got shit out of a job that I had literally driven nearly the damn length of the eastern seaboard to get to and have no options except living off my GI bill and hoping to hell something payable comes up soon.

[Lyell]

We, as individuals AND as a group, brought up the issues we had to the transition coordinator and he LIED to us. REPEATEDLY. Till the day he turned over to the transition team, got his his lexus and drove away.

This is where I intended the in writhing and notarized. Never believe anyone in corporate america unless it's in writing. A union rep would have asked for the same thing.

[Rhys]

So rather than contact a lawyer they accepted what happened. Were the agreements in writing and notarized? A union isn't required for those things, by the way.

You need to understand that your average American worker doesn't have the time, means, etc. to hire a lawyer capable of standing up to their employers, if they can afford to hire them at all. Especially if they've just been laid off unjustly, had their hours docked unfairly, etc. They're also not an expert on contracts so watching for loopholes and the like that allow for abuses isn't exactly their strong suit.

Meanwhile, if a Union is present, these kind of issues rarely happen in the first place. They're a protective measure that is there, generally on site, protecting the workers and making sure things around the business they work within are done properly. They make sure these contracts don't allow abuses and all in all just improve the work environment by a significant margin. Yes, seniority issues can occur. But generally speaking that's a problem with management choosing to keep crap employees around forever when in reality, the process of firing a unionized employee when they deserve it, is not all that difficult.

Now, with things like OSHA and the like you're waiting for a lengthy investigation to conclude; one where many safety issues can easily be swept under the rug only to appear again later. Ones where bosses can find a 'genuine' reason to fire the complaining employee leaving them jobless and without the time, means, etc. to fight them on it. Same goes for wrongful termination suits. Kind of difficult to do a lawsuit when a lawyer costs an arm and a leg and your time is invested in finding a new job. Never mind the issues similar to those listed by Callie Del Noire.

Unions have been shown to regularly improve the work environment. They're a protective measure I've personally seen work in both the public and private sector. Abuses by employers are rarer by a significant margin in jobs with unions and when they happen they are resolved without a significant and often unreasonable burden being placed on the employees. 

Lastly, I just gotta say that pointing out one example of one problem in one union doesn't strengthen your argument. There are bad unions just like there are bad OSHA reps or bad anything else. In the face of all the cases daily of unions insuring that management in a variety of fields isn't abusing its power/its workers, these few and far between instances of corruption and other problems the Republicans like to focus on are fairly meaningless. Its like when they try to cut Social Security because of 'all the people trying to get on it to scam the government' when, in the real world, that's less that 1% of the people applying. It doesn't make sense and has no real relevance within the argument at hand. One case of a potentially bad union (though I'd venture a guess that we're only seeing one side of the story in your quote) doesn't mean the rest of them are less effective. If a majority of unions were a problem that would be one thing. But given how strongly unionized employees tend to fight for them, its fairly obvious that isn't the case.

[Lyell]

Replace every word in this section accordingly,

Union = Corporation
Republican = Democrat
OSHA = Union

Lastly, I just gotta say that pointing out one example of one problem in one union doesn't strengthen your argument. There are bad unions just like there are bad OSHA reps or bad anything else. In the face of all the cases daily of unions insuring that management in a variety of fields isn't abusing its power/its workers, these few and far between instances of corruption and other problems the Republicans like to focus on are fairly meaningless.

And you have what I've been trying to get across for the past few days.

[Will]

Most non-union employees and the federal union employees outlined previously aren't paid based on what someone else negotiates for them. They're paid according to individual merit, how much of an asset they are to the company,their job security is also based on the same principal.

Could you possibly provide evidence to support the bolded part?  Something to show that these non-union people are paid according to merit, and not just paid the least the company can get away with?

I also fail to see how legislation alone could do anything to assure that.  I'm curious to know what you would suggest.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree with Will. I worked food service before joining the Navy. I worked hard, trained a TON of folks and did all sorts of things to help improve the company bottom line. More often than not individual merit didn't get me a raise. It took finally transferring to a store where the manager was married and not screwing my workers to get me better raises.

I was the first worker in, did more hours than any 2 other workers in the store, was faster, and more skilled at running the store. I got BONED on salary.  If it wasn't for the fact that I was pulling down so much in tips that I made more money in pizza delivery than I did as a TEN YEAR 2nd class Petty Officer in the Navy. And worked about the same number of hours.

And Rys is right. My brother is a lawyer back in NC, a very successful one. You know what he told me when I asked him about my job issue?

It would take YEARS to resolve and lots of money. Because the company had the cash to keep it going till I went broke.

[Lyell]

Really, you couldn't have gone higher up the chain of command to someone else? Typically, corporations and franchises have some sort of internal means of resolving this kind of thing. The first question out of my mouth during an interview is "how are internal issues handled?" I've come to expect a prepared answer and avoid employers that don't have one.

Will, I don't know what to tell you. Typically detailed information of that nature is considered proprietary. Giving out personal accounts would also infringe on non-disclosure agreements. I could possibly get away with vague descriptions but even that is risky. 

[Will]

Really, you couldn't have gone higher up the chain of command to someone else? Typically, corporations and franchises have some sort of internal means of resolving this kind of thing. The first question out of my mouth during an interview is "how are internal issues handled?" I've come to expect a prepared answer and avoid employers that don't have one.

This really isn't the sort of job market where you can filter out possible employers based on things like that.  Lots of people have to take what they can get.

Will, I don't know what to tell you. Typically detailed information of that nature is considered proprietary. Giving out personal accounts would also infringe on non-disclosure agreements. I could possibly get away with vague descriptions but even that is risky. 

Then I would avoid making such statements.

[Lyell]

This really isn't the sort of job market where you can filter out possible employers based on things like that.  Lots of people have to take what they can get.

Then I would avoid making such statements.

I was hurting for a job in October. Wasn't going to be able to make my rent if something didn't come soon. Still held out though. Finally getting back on my feet. Feels good. Not to mention, having a job makes getting another one easier.

How about you? Do you have some magical access to the pay rates of union members and the metrics they use to determine those rates? It seems a pretty standard tactic to ask the impossible of people and then dismiss the validity of points they may have, no matter how truthful. I'll see what I can do about getting some of my former employers to respond to some letter asking about general detail, but I'm not expecting anything specific.

[Oniya]

How about you? Do you have some magical access to the pay rates of union members and the metrics they use to determine those rates? It seems a pretty standard tactic to ask the impossible of people and then dismiss the validity of points they may have, no matter how truthful. I'll see what I can do about getting some of my former employers to respond to some letter asking about general detail, but I'm not expecting anything specific.

Does this help?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t02.htm

[Lyell]

Not really. This doesn't include things like relevant training, performance metrics, attendance records, accident reports, improvements inspired, synergy with co-workers, etc.

[Will]

There are too many factors that go into an employee's "merit" to have any chance of proving whether or not an employee gets paid as they should or not.  You can always look at experience, education, and seniority and attach a suitable monetary amount to that, but that doesn't include for intangibles.  How hard a person works and so forth.  So was I asking you the impossible?  Yes, I was.  That's the point.  I don't think that's any more disagreeable than making an unprovable statement like "they get paid based on merit" and expecting everyone to just nod along.

[Lyell]

Yet you've pretty much admitted these are used in one form or another by non union workplaces. Atleast, the ones with ethical standards.

[Jude]

Only the most ethical, considerate employers actually pay their workers based on what they're worth to them.  And, because of the stock market, very few incorporated entities that are managed efficiently do that.  The point of investing in the stock market is to see a return on your investment.  Returns only occur if the company rises in value by increasing profit.  To do that you must either decrease cost or increase profit.  The former merely requires stringent financial controls and cost-cutting measures which work almost 100% of the time.  Therefore unless growth is occurring naturally because the economy is booming (thus giving Corporations room to breathe and be inefficient), any corporation is looking to manage cost as stringently as possible.  Wages paid to employees are cost.

Corporations pay you as little as they possibly can while retaining your services, NOT what they can afford to pay you based on the value of what you produce for them.  This is where unions come in; industries where where the labor force is pouring out gold for the company and getting paid in bronze are basically asking for unionization to occur.  And it isn't just the industries which unionize that benefit from unions either.  The entire workforce does because the threat of unions becomes a factor of consideration that corporations must take into account when they choose to abuse their employees.

When government assists business in union-busting, it can have a short-term positive effect on the economy (because business is placated into capital investments and hiring cheap labor), but if you want to see what it does to the country longterm, check out what happened to the growth of wages for the average American after Reagan went around destroying unions (cliffnotes:  it stagnated).  Unions are an important part of the economic ecosystem, but that isn't to say that they never do bad things.  They demand far too much in many instances, are inflexible with their pensions, and pretty much killed the American auto-industry.  That's why we need to find a moderate position between Union hatred and unquestioning support.

[Lyell]

I'm sorry but any corporate head or anyone who has taken a business class will laugh at you for calling their workforce a cost. They're a resource. Admittedly a resource that requires constant reinvestment, but in the same sense that maintaining equipment requires constant reinvestment. A company that wants to last keeps its employees and its machines happy, even in a downturn. Non union establishments can make leaps and bounds of advancement and provide -get this- job security in the event of a downturn.

Question. Did union busting stagnate the  wages or was it the already in a downturn headed for deep recession economy?

[itsbeenfun2000]

Oh the economy stagnated the wage. But has it hurt the corporations? Oil corporations are still recording record profits.

May I point out that in the case of a teacher's contract it would be impractical for management to negotiate individual contracts. It is not the "union thugs" that negotiate local contracts it is 5 or 6 Representatives elected by the teachers of that district. People they trust and work in the classroom. One of the more democratic processes in the work place.

[Lyell]

Just like it would be impractical for a CEO of a multi-million corporation to go around the world negotiating individual contracts. Fortunately they typically have the insight to delegate those responsibilities to people they trust.

[Rhys]

Alright, seriously, the question is still on the table: What practical purpose does the removal of unions serve? Everyone but you Lyell has given specific examples of the good they do (or the bad that occurs when they're not around) while you've made general assumptions about them being obsolete and talked about how people can resolve disputes without unions without really acknowledging the facts that the unions provide useful checks and balances and prevent numerous disputes with their mere presence, increasing worker morale and making for a better work environment. We've already seen that the fiscal changes aren't needed given the amount of budget cuts and the like that can easily be made elsewhere. Now we're going to talk about contracts and how we don't need the unions because people can pre-establish their rights? Yes, because corporations never commit breach of contract knowing full well that most Americans don't have the time, money, means, etc. to fight them on it especially if said breach has left them out of a job.

Yes, ethical workplaces sometimes allow you to resolve disputes  in a practical manner... though generally speaking its far less practical than simple prevention caused by the presence of a union. Ethical people generally don't commit murder. That doesn't mean we should stop having groups that investigate homicide. They still provide a necessary service despite the fact that a majority of people in the world never kill anyone. Its an extreme example yes, and a bit of hyperbole. But it was the one that came to mind.

We can't base employee protections off what happens in a properly/morally run company. We're not that naive. We realize that violations are going to happen and that checks and balances need to be in place so they can be stopped. On some level, we need to assume the worst and be prepared for it. The unions allow for a system in which workers can rely on capable people they trust to stop these violations and disputes without the burden being placed consistently on them. Honestly, I see no bad in that. Yes, there are other, less efficient, means of solving disputes. But having the checks and balances provided by a good union certainly doesn't hurt anyone.

[Callie Del Noire]

I have to agree with Rhys here Lyell. You've give a lot of general assumptions and seem to think we should just 'trust management' to do the right thing? No offense but I think the last few years have proven that the men who make the decisions have only one 'best interests' in mind. Their bonus checks and jobs.

They worked things to deregulate industry till they could pretty much do anything to get rich quick. No matter the long term consequences to anyone else. Big business isn't about playing 'ethical' or 'nice'. They USED to take the long view on profitability and growth, now it's how you can maximize THIS years profits and maybe consider next year in the doing.

That more than anything else is why is why business in this country is looking to get everything they can in their favor.

[Apple of Eris]

I'm sorry but any corporate head or anyone who has taken a business class will laugh at you for calling their workforce a cost.

Uhm... this is just wrong. Labor at least in the foodservice and hospitality industries, which I am most familiar with (being my legal specialization), consider Labor a cost. In fact all your compensation would be found in the category, Labor Cost. Combine that with Food and you have Prime Costs.

You can call it whatever you want, but companies that are non-union will do all they can to maximize profits, that's what profit companies do. They're not altruistic organiztion out to make their employees the happiest people ever, they're in it for a buck. Here are some examples of things some food service companies and hospitality companies in the area have done:

Frozen all wages.
Eliminated all overtime, instead hiring temp labor to fill extra time needs (as it's cheaper).
Reduced the workforce hours to 37 hours a week while expecting the output.
Eliminated all bonus and reward programs (this company had a program where if employees met certain goals they'd earn rewards like movie passes and so forth)
Scaled back insurance and retirement plans.

I mean the list goes on and on. Yet some of those companies also run unionized locations, those locations didn't feel the chop like the non-union ones. And some of these companies that I've worked with have revenues in the billions and profits in the hundreds of millions, so they weren't exactly hurting...

Oh and worst of all? At least the worst to me personally, since I repped the company at the unemployment hearings was when one company laid off 75% of it's staff, replaced them with cheap labor or illegal immigrants (and yes, one of the guys told me he came into the US illegally. The conversation was kind of an amusing muddle of bad english and broken spanish) and then fought to deny their former employees unemployment. Happily, we did not win every case we contested.

Many of those abuses just do not happen as frequently in a union shop. Now, do teachers need unions? I don't know. I am not in the education field so I honestly can't say, but are unions in general unnecessary? I'd say heck no.

[Callie Del Noire]

Here is another job example to fill in your bin Apple.

I was recently offered a job in Boston doing wire bundle assembly and installation. Downtown Boston. 30 to 35 hours a week was what was quoted to me at 15.00/hour.  The reason I got called was quite plainly put to me. I'm a disabled vet (80%) which means I qualify for Tricare and they can short me medical coverage. (in addition to keeping me short of overtime)

Needless to say I didn't take the job offer (since I'd be shorted another 3% of my pay to repay the relocation 'loan')

[Lyell]

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. What explains these apparently contradictory findings? The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.

Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.

This, along with the fact that unions function as labor cartels that seek to reduce job opportunities, causes unionized companies to lose jobs. Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.

Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else. On balance, labor cartels harm the economy, and enacting policies designed to force workers into unions will only prolong the recession.

Unions argue that they can raise their members' wages, but few Americans understand the economic theory explaining how they do this. Unions are labor cartels. Cartels work by restricting the supply of what they produce so that consumers will have to pay higher prices for it. OPEC, the best-known cartel, attempts to raise the price of oil by cutting oil production. As labor cartels, unions attempt to monopolize the labor supplied to a company or an industry in order to force employers to pay higher wages. In this respect, they function like any other cartel and have the same effects on the economy.

Cartels benefit their members in the short run and harm the overall economy. Imagine that General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler jointly agreed to raise the price of the cars they sold by $2,000: Their profits would rise as every American who bought a car paid more. Some Americans would no longer be able to afford a car at the higher price, so the automakers would manufacture and sell fewer vehicles. Then they would need--and hire--fewer workers. The Detroit automakers' stock prices would rise, but the overall economy would suffer. That is why federal anti-trust laws prohibit cartels and the automakers cannot collude to raise prices.

Now consider how the United Auto Workers (UAW)--the union representing the autoworkers in Detroit--functions. Before the current downturn, the UAW routinely went on strike unless the Detroit automakers paid what they demanded--until recently, $70 an hour in wages and benefits. Gold-plated UAW health benefits for retirees and active workers added $1,200 to the cost of each vehicle that GM produced in 2007. Other benefits, such as full retirement after 30 years of employment and the recently eliminated JOBS bank (which paid workers for not working), added more.

Some of these costs come out of profits, and some get passed to consumers through higher prices. UAW members earn higher wages, but every American who buys a car pays more, stock owners' wealth falls, and some Americans can no longer afford to buy a new car. The automakers also hire fewer workers because they now make and sell fewer cars.

Unions raise the wages of their members both by forcing consumers to pay more for what they buy or do without and by costing some workers their jobs. They have the same harmful effect on the economy as other cartels, despite benefiting some workers instead of stock owners. That is why the federal anti-trust laws exempt labor unions; otherwise, anti-monopoly statutes would also prohibit union activity.

Unions' role as monopoly cartels explains their opposition to trade and competition. A cartel can charge higher prices only as long as it remains a monopoly. If consumers can buy elsewhere, a company must cut its prices or go out of business.

This has happened to the UAW. Non-union workers at Honda and Toyota plants now produce high-quality cars at lower prices than are possible in Detroit. As consumers have voted with their feet, the Detroit automakers have been brought to the brink of bankruptcy. The UAW has now agreed to significant concessions that will eliminate a sizeable portion of the gap between UAW and non-union wages. With competition, the union cartel breaks down, and unions cannot force consumers to pay higher prices or capture higher wages for their members.

Unionized employers must pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and spend months negotiating before making any changes in the workplace. Unionized companies often avoid making changes because the benefits are not worth the time and cost of negotiations. Both of these effects make unionized businesses less flexible and less competitive.

Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains. As a result, union contracts typically base pay and promotions on seniority or detailed union job classifications. Unions rarely allow employers to base pay on individual performance or promote workers on the basis of individual ability.

Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies. But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees.

Numerous economic studies compare the average earnings of union and non-union workers, holding other measurable factors--age, gender, education, and industry--constant. These studies typically find that the average union member earns roughly 15 percent more than comparable non-union workers. More recent research shows that errors in the data used to estimate wages caused these estimates to understate the true difference. Estimates that correct these errors show that the average union member earns between 20 percent and 25 percent more than similar non-union workers. 86 --Barry T. Hirsch, "Reconsidering Union Wage Effects: Surveying New Evidence on an Old Topic," Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 25, No. 2 (April 2004), pp. 233-266.

Union wage gains do not materialize out of thin air. They come out of business earnings. Other union policies, such as union work rules designed to increase the number of workers needed to do a job and stringent job classifications, also raise costs. Often, unionized companies must raise prices to cover these costs, losing customers in the process. Fewer customers and higher costs would be expected to cut businesses' earnings, and economists find that unions have exactly this effect. Unionized companies earn lower profits than are earned by non-union businesses.

In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less. By cutting profits, unions also reduce the money that firms have available for new investments, so they also indirectly reduce investment.

Lower investment obviously hinders the competitiveness of unionized firms. The Detroit automakers have done so poorly in the recent economic downturn in part because they invested far less than their non-union competitors in researching and developing fuel-efficient vehicles. When the price of gas jumped to $4 a gallon, consumers shifted away from SUVs to hybrids, leaving the Detroit carmakers unable to compete and costing many UAW members their jobs.

Counterintuitively, research shows that unions do not make companies more likely to go bankrupt. Unionized firms do not go out of business at higher rates than non-union firms. Unionized firms do, however, shed jobs more frequently and expand less frequently than non-union firms. Most studies show that jobs contract or grow more slowly, by between 3 and 4 percentage points a year, in unionized businesses than they do in non-unionized businesses.

Consider General Motors. GM shed tens of thousands of jobs over the past decade, but the UAW steadfastly refused to any concessions that would have improved GM's competitive standing. Only in 2007--with the company on the brink of bankruptcy--did the UAW agree to lower wages, and then only for new hires. The UAW accepted steep job losses as the price of keeping wages high for senior members.

The balance of economic research shows that unions do not just happen to organize firms with more layoffs and less job growth: They cause job losses. Most studies find that jobs drop at newly organized companies, with employment falling between 5 percent and 10 percent. -- Freeman and Kleiner, "The Impact of New Unionization on Wages and Working Conditions"; Lalonde, Marschke, and Troske, "Using Longitudinal Data on Establishments to Analyze the Effects of Union Organizing Campaigns in the United States."

Labor cartels attempt to reduce the number of jobs in an industry in order to raise the wages of their members. Unions cut into corporate profitability, also reducing business investment and employment over the long term.

These effects do not help the job market during normal economic circumstances, and they cause particular harm during recessions. Economists have found that unions delay economic recoveries. States with more union members took considerably longer than those with fewer union members to recover from the 1982 and 1991 recessions. -- Robert Krol and Shirley Svorny, "Unions and Employment Growth: Evidence from State Economic Recoveries," Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Summer 2007), pp. 525-535.

Unions simply do not provide the economic benefits that their supporters claim they provide. They are labor cartels, intentionally reducing the number of jobs to drive up wages for their members.

In competitive markets, unions cannot cartelize labor and raise wages. Companies with higher labor costs go out of business. Consequently, unions do not raise wages in many newly organized companies. Unions can raise wages only at companies that have competitive advantages that permit them to pay higher wages, such as successful R&D projects or long-lasting capital investments.

On balance, unionizing raises wages between 0 percent and 10 percent, but these wage increases come at a steep economic cost. They cut into profits and reduce the returns on investments. Businesses respond predictably by investing significantly less in capital and R&D projects. Unions have the same effect on business investment as does a 33 percentage point corporate income tax increase.

Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive, and they gradually shrink. Combined with the intentional efforts of a labor cartel to restrict labor, unions cut jobs. Unionized firms are no more likely than non-union firms to go out of business--unions make concessions to avoid bankruptcy--but jobs grow at a 4 percent slower rate at unionized businesses than at other companies. Over time, unions destroy jobs in the companies they organize. In manufacturing, three-quarters of all union jobs have disappeared over the past three decades, while the number of non-union jobs has increased.

No economic theory posits that cartels improve economic efficiency. Nor has reality ever shown them to do so. Union cartels retard economic growth and delay recovery from recession.

[Zeitgeist]

I've never worked for a union so I cannot in truth speak on its merits or shortfalls. All of my work experience has been for private companies, with the exception of a 4 year tour in the Navy.

One experience that stands out it a couple years ago, for the same company I've been working for for 12 years now. I noticed the trend of my raises each year falling. I contacted the accounting department and they sent me a spreadsheet of my raises since I had started. When you graphed the trend it was clearly down, less and less each year. This despite my contributions over all each year. So I went into my review with this information and pointed it out to my supervisor. I also included my contributions over the year, the projects I worked on and the volume of work I did. I also included 'references' from internal customers I do work for. I treated the review like a job interview.

I got a raise that year, in the neighborhood of 10-12%

I'm sure there are corrupt and miserly corporations out there. I can only say I've yet to encounter one.

[Valerian]

Since Lyell neglected to offer his source for his last post:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Emphasis mine.

If you're only researching on sites with an anti-union agenda, you're certainly not going to get the whole picture.

[Rhys]

And you can go on American Progress Reaction and see pretty much the exact same statistics spun to the extreme the other way to show why unions are good thing. This is why neutral sources are our friends.

That said, as you said before only like what was it? 12% of our workforce is unionized? That's the statistic I found, at least. Placing the blame for economic stagnation on the unions when they don't represent 88% of works was enough for me to call your statistics into question. Seeing they come from the Heritage Foundation just makes me roll my eyes and move on, looking for someone who's going to tell the story impartially.

[Lyell]

I was asked to provide evidence of harm that unions do. Notably while drinking heavily. If we are to discount anyone with an agenda, any second party source is unreliable. A subject that involves how much one is or is not paid is rather difficult to cover unbiased.

A member of the JoongAng Ilbo Economic Research Institute is of the opinion that only unions that have grown to levels which the employer or government cannot control are problems. I don't know how credited this information is since it'll probably be discounted for being about overseas instead of here.

"[…] a labor union of a large business group benefits from wage hike, the expenses to do so go to contractors. Wages of workers at contractors will go down, or the contractors will reduce new hires. An executive of an auto component maker at Ulsan's Hyomun industrial complex said, "Whenever the Hyundai Motor labor union and the firm undergo wage negotiations, prices of our components were mentioned. Eventually, we have to cut down the wage increase that we promised to our workers." Due to the activities of militant labor unions, a labor market becomes polarized.

When Kia or Hyundai motor companies see that some of its car models become unexpectedly popular, the employers must place more workers on the assembly lines of those models as soon as possible. But, the employers could not do so, because the labor unions reject such changes.

When workers change assembly lines, such reshuffles may change the number of representatives at the labor unions representing certain factions or interest groups, disturbing the power balance within the labor unions. Therefore, such position changes are often rejected by unions. After the Kia Motors incident, labor unions have lost the public trust. […]" http://industrialrelations.typepad.com/unionsfirmsmarkets/2005/03/when_unions_hur.html

Problems in Malaysia, "demanded the conversion of daily wages to monthly salaries. Although it was a valid demand, the strike, which lasted 22 days, had an economic backlash. It would be an unimaginable episode, a nightmare, if this were to happen in the present. The loss in revenue productivity and development will run into millions of ringgit if not billions. The economy would be crippled." http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/new-straits-times/mi_8016/is_20100105/unions-harm/ai_n45775096/

But like I said, overseas examples that will likely be dismissed for being such.

I found this one entertaining, though a blog from another economist and clearly slated twords conservatism. May or may not be worth your time. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/labour_unions

I'd quote Milton and Rose Friedman but they're right to work advocates. Which is probably why I don't see a lot of countermaterial, since it would come from union advocates. Oh, I've been trying to find something that disproves the "no economic theory exists that conveys unions increase economic efficiency" bit as a means of entertaining myself. No matter how I plug it in, unions and economic efficiency only seems to point twords arguments about social equality.

[Jude]

I feel like we have a fundamentally different definition of the word "union."  When I think union, I think of a group of laborers who have come together to pool their individual influence so that they actually have a chance of receiving better compensation and working conditions.  Individually they have no power because their employer can terminate them if they refuse to work, but together they actually have some recourse because collectively they represent an important asset of production.  What's bad about this?

It seems like nearly every criticism you give of unions only applies to those that become corrupt.  I don't disagree that it can happen, but if you're going to judge the entire array of unions by the worst among them, of course you're going to feel that they're bad for our country.  The same can be said of corporations.

Now if you believe there aren't any (or many) greedy corporations out there that do really unscrupulous things to their workers I don't know what to say.  I find that position so utterly disconnected from the reality of modern America that it basically serves as a gap that no discussion can bridge.

[Callie Del Noire]

I have agreed that the Unions can be hard to deal with but I doubt that ALL unions are as diabolically 'anti-business' as you seem to find Lyell. The research institute you pointed out in your post isn't' even an American organization, and from the looks of it primarily focused on business growth.

So, I'll ask this as I'm not sure I'm following your logic in this post and prior ones.

Are you saying that Unions are unneeded to protect the worker's interests at all, despite historic evidence to the contrary going back to the 1800s in several countries? No group is absolutely 'good' or 'evil' and to eliminate one without some counter to another group is asking for even more abuse.

Before you eliminate a group as significant as Unions and Collective Bargaining as a whole, can you say with sureness that big business/government won't exploit the opening? Look at the moves such businessmen as Frank Lorenzo did to break contracts with Unions. He broke contracts, worked people and aircraft to unsafe levels of performance and finally bankrupted Continental in an effort to break the unions. It was such a nasty move that when he did similar actions in 1989 when he ran Eastern Airlines that Congress passed a bill EXPRESSLY to investigate the labor dispute.  President Bush vetoed it and Eastern followed Continental into bankruptcy. Lorenzo got what he wanted, money, and everyone else got poorer out of it.

In both cases it was Business that refused to mediate and discuss things. Lorenzo ran his airlines into the ground, and risked THOUSANDS of people's safety by circumventing safety practices. No one would have noticed if the machinists hadn't tried to bring it up during their negotiations and eventual strike.

[Elle Mental]

Your definition of "Union" is likely closer to the original intent of their creation. Much like businesses are formed for the original intent on providing better goods and services to people.

Alas, however, the name of the game is money and authority. And corporations, as you pointed out, are blamed tirelessly for their money loving ways. Unions, however, are hardly a beacon of humanity. You don't think Union leaders are out for themselves? Truth be told, the only time when unions and/or big businesses become insufferable is when they get involved in politics. Because no matter what, a politician will always lean one way or another in regards to business vs. unions. When that happens benefits go to the victor and their original intent becomes highly skewed.

[Lyell]

I never said unions were anti-business. If the corporation falls, so too do the unions since they won't be able to sustain themselves without dues. I have however said that they are bad for business.

The United States has its own history regarding slave mines and sweat shops. Labor unions brought to light those issues, and later legislation was created to protect the common worker. I have never argued that no good has ever come from unions. Government legislation mandates Human Resource departments and OSHA adherance for corporations. As problems that labor unions addressed recieved recognition and laws to prevent them, unions perpetuated themselves so that they would survive and continue collecting dues. Circumventing safety protocol sounds like something that OSHA would be interested in investigating and whistleblower protection would have prevented backlash, assuming they existed for these scenarios and were called upon. I admit the protection is needed, but the redundancy is costly.

[Apple of Eris]

I've seen you mention whistleblower protection repeatedly. You do realize that there is a complete mash of federal laws about 20 if I remember correctly that deal with whistleblowing. I can tell you a good number are environmental in nature (as in whistleblowing violations of the clean water/air acts etc), at least one deals solely with truckdrivers, and one is specific to corporate fraud, one act only states that government employees can't be retaliated against for a report to congress.

Now, if you look at the case Garcetti v. Ceballos 547 US 410 (2006) you'll find that the Supreme Court ruled that a government employee, acting in the capacity of their office is entitled to no first amendement protections because they are not acting as private citizens. Essentially, that sets a precedent that a human resource worker could discover that her boss is not hiring, lets say white folks, because they dislike caucasians. Our intrepid HR worker complains through channels and is soon transferred out to a job that pays less, etc. What can she do? Well, as it turns out, because she acted in her job capacity, not much. Had she gone public, there is perhaps a chance she might have protection, but would likely be sued for breach of confidentiality and if it isn't proven what her boss had done, could be hit with a defamation lawsuit as well.

Now look at the protections state by state, as each state offers various levels of protection. Here's a listing by state: http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13390 I'd like to point out that a number of states have no whistleblower protections, some states offer them only to public employees, and many fewer public and private employees.

Let's take a look at the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 as well. It protects only federal whistleblowers, and has three authorized agencies that enforce the act. One, the Office of Special Counsel. It hasn't had a permanent head since 2008 when Scott J Bloch stepped down. Bloch by the way would later be investigated for retaliating against employees, and also for not following up complaints filed by gay claimants. He later pleaded guilty to improperly deleting files (bringing in an outside firm to scrub agency computers of files related to investigations of his conduct).

Agency two, the Merit Systems Protection Board. Basically it is meant to protect Executive branch employees from wrongful termination. The most obvious being if an employee were hired during a one administration and later fired by a new administration simply for being of the wrong political leaning, basically the board is meant to prevent that. In the past decade, out of approximately 60 cases, less than five were decided in favor of terminated employees.

The third agency is The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court was critized by several lawmakers, including conservatives such as Senator Grassley (Iowa) for misinterpreting whistleblower laws and setting precedents hostile to claimants. This court, from 1994-2010 has found for claimants in only 3 cases out of 203.

Really before it can be claimed that unions are not needed anymore because whistleblowers have protection, they need to actually have protection.


Oh and just a couple references
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-14-whistleblowers_N.htm

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13390

and this was interesting reading, to me anyway.
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1339&context=aulr

[Lyell]

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 gives employees and their representatives the right to file a complaint and request an OSHA inspection of their workplace if they believe there is a serious hazard or their employer is not following OSHA standards. Further, the Act gives complainants the right to request that their names not be revealed to their employers.

Complaints from employees and their representatives are taken seriously by OSHA. It is against the law for an employer to fire, demote, transfer, or discriminate in any way against a worker for filing a complaint or using other OSHA rights.

[itsbeenfun2000]

The employee or Representatives may file the complaint. If the person doesn't have a union to represent them then who files? The laws for grievances are similar I am sure.

[Lyell]

They can choose for their names not to be revealed. It's anonymous as far as the employer is concerned.

[Will]

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 gives employees and their representatives the right to file a complaint and request an OSHA inspection of their workplace if they believe there is a serious hazard or their employer is not following OSHA standards. Further, the Act gives complainants the right to request that their names not be revealed to their employers.

Complaints from employees and their representatives are taken seriously by OSHA. It is against the law for an employer to fire, demote, transfer, or discriminate in any way against a worker for filing a complaint or using other OSHA rights.

"Occupational safety and health" hardly covers all the necessary bases.  You've been given examples of systems not working; OSHA doesn't handle the same types of cases, so I fail to see how they qualify as a rebuttal.

[Callie Del Noire]

What (or who do you talk to) in cases like Enron where the company engaged in MASSIVE deletion of electronic documents and other actions? OSHA doesn't do that either.

[Lyell]

Corporate fraud? Sounds like a FBI case.

[Callie Del Noire]

Corporate fraud? Sounds like a FBI case.

Thing was at the TIME the crime didn't exist on the books (technically!)..the Data protection acts were after the fact. Corporate mischief, particularly in this fast developing tech world, sometimes proceeds legislation.

[Will]

I'm not clear on why taking your employer to court is such a perfect fix.  Others have mentioned companies using certain tactics to quash that kind of action, such as dragging out the litigation to the point where the employee has no money left to continue.  You haven't responded to this, Lyell.

[Vekseid]

I'm not clear on why taking your employer to court is such a perfect fix.  Others have mentioned companies using certain tactics to quash that kind of action, such as dragging out the litigation to the point where the employee has no money left to continue.  You haven't responded to this, Lyell.

SLAPP lawsuits and gag order settlements in particular.

Not to mention the excessive backlog of civil suits lately.

Corporate fraud? Sounds like a FBI case.

On whose budget?

The FBI was certainly aware of massive fraud in 2004, but they weren't allowed to go after it.

[Lyell]

I haven't responded to it because like everyone else on this section of the board I ignore when someone has proven their points validity rather than concede. It's fairly common.

Taking the last decade's activity into account and then some, Congressional budget and the diversion of focus from crime to counter-terrorism let recent issues slip through. They've been stretched thin by Bush era paranoia for a while. The Obama administration has been working to correct this mistake since 2008, one of the things I actually applaud him for doing. Before discounting them as a viable means, the FBI should get a proper chance under more optimal operating conditions, yes?

[Jude]

Lyell, you have a point about the corruption of some unions, I just don't think the answer is to get rid of them all as a result.  I'm also having a hard time seeing how what you propose as an alternative is any different.

Lets say we abolished unions and the government officially became responsible for watching corporations in order to ensure workers are getting compensated fairly and work under good conditions.  We'd need legislation to establish all of this.  There would have to be some sort of baseline set for each and every industry by the government to establish these fair conditions.  Corporations in every industry would lobby for those standards to be set at a level that is beneficial to them.

Now, in order for those things to be fair, the workers need to have their voice heard as well.  So they're going to need to form a lobbying group as well.  It's costly to lobby; and the group will need to stick around incase congress reviews changing the baseline because of economic conditions such as inflation or cost of living increases.  How is this lobby any different than a union exactly?  All you've done is publicized a private process; something small government conservatives should abhor.

So, why are conservatives so staunchly against unions?  I don't get it.

[Callie Del Noire]

I know that some companies like pushing everything into arbitration, and that several have been found to have unseemly amounts of connections to their arbitrators. In fact so companies go so far as making ALL issues that come up as the ONLY method of dealing with problems. As in when you sign your contract you give away all your rights to sue or pursue judicial action against the company.

That doesn't seem very fair.

[Lyell]

Lets say we abolished unions and the government officially became responsible for watching corporations in order to ensure workers are getting compensated fairly and work under good conditions.  We'd need legislation to establish all of this.  There would have to be some sort of baseline set for each and every industry by the government to establish these fair conditions.  Corporations in every industry would lobby for those standards to be set at a level that is beneficial to them.

You mean like how OSHA sets standards for minimum safety and health requirements, as does the federal established minimum wage? Free market theory suggests that corporations who desire employees of stronger skill set and reliability will pay more to hire and retain them. My current employer goes so far as to outline which training and habits will merit advancement and raises.

Now, in order for those things to be fair, the workers need to have their voice heard as well.  So they're going to need to form a lobbying group as well.  It's costly to lobby; and the group will need to stick around incase congress reviews changing the baseline because of economic conditions such as inflation or cost of living increases.  How is this lobby any different than a union exactly?  All you've done is publicized a private process; something small government conservatives should abhor.

How would pooling money to lobby for Democratic candidates and lobbyists be any different than paying dues to an organization that does it for you? Well for one, I'd like to think the money would go to candidates who are interested in protecting EVERY worker instead of just those who are members of unions.
How much less private would it be than being forced to identify with a union who possibly doesn't represent your views? "Most countries that rely on private donations to fund campaigns require extensive disclosure of donations, frequently including information such as the name, employer and address of donors. This is intended to allow for policing of undue donor influence by other campaigns or by good government groups, while preserving most benefits of private financing." All it would do is level the field for individuals who are already forced to disclose their personal information. Isn't an equal chance for everyone something a democrat would drive for?

So, why are conservatives so staunchly against unions?  I don't get it.

Typically it comes down to the pay. Union negotiated pay increases hurt many businesses by forcing them to cut jobs and services, export jobs overseas (where it's cheaper), and raise the prices of goods to compensate for the decrease in profit. I don't know why profit is such a bad word on this board. It's a difference between money generated by normal business activities and cost, as Apple has established, workers fall under. Looking at the technical terms a little more closely, I understand what he meant.
Most profit is reinvested into the business to make sure it can sustain itself as business climate and technology evolve. Unions infringe upon that capacity, usually passing the cost on to the consumer. Considering how low the profit margin is on the food industry already, I can see why McDonald's and other restaurants avoid them like the plague.

[Callie Del Noire]

So.. let me see if I got your issues on Unions donating/collecting money down right.


It's BAD when a union supports politicians who support a generally pro-labor outlook. (Better work conditions, job security, wages and such)

but it's GOOD when folks like the Koch Brothers spend MILLIONS to eliminate known Carcinogens from the lists put out by the American Cancer society, pay even more MILLIONS to lobbyists, special interests and all the rest?

[HairyHeretic]

Typically it comes down to the pay. Union negotiated pay increases hurt many businesses by forcing them to cut jobs and services, export jobs overseas (where it's cheaper), and raise the prices of goods to compensate for the decrease in profit.

Hang on, do you seriously believe that union negotiated pay rises are why corporations cut jobs and export them overseas?

[Oniya]

Also, OSHA and the like came out of the unions of the early 1900's.  Before that, we had incidents like the Triangle Shirt Waist Fire, and the Monongah Coal Mine explosion (referred to as 'the worst industrial accident in US history').

[itsbeenfun2000]

Why would we trust the cooporations to do whats right when they skipped all kinds of saftey checks in the gulf? It is not like the big oil/coal/industry is willing not to take risks with the lives of their labor force anymore. With unions at least they have laws they have to answer to.

[Lyell]

Also, OSHA and the like came out of the unions of the early 1900's.  Before that, we had incidents like the Triangle Shirt Waist Fire, and the Monongah Coal Mine explosion (referred to as 'the worst industrial accident in US history').

Let me reiterate it since I seem to have to every post.

I have never argued that no good has ever come out of unions.

Why would we trust the cooporations to do whats right when they skipped all kinds of saftey checks in the gulf? It is not like the big oil/coal/industry is willing not to take risks with the lives of their labor force anymore. With unions at least they have laws they have to answer to.

This also touches back on my question as to why the legislation isn't in place. BP has 760 OSHA citations and fines. The second closest one only has 8. Why then are they still being allowed to operate in the U.S.? Because they have many subsidiari­es that have government contracts. If OSHA had the proper authority given to them, I doubt the gulf incident would have happened.

Hang on, do you seriously believe that union negotiated pay rises are why corporations cut jobs and export them overseas?

Perhaps a better question would have been if I'd believed that were the only reason. Relevant to this subject, it's certainly a contributing factor. As are I'm guessing related tax incentives, better tax rates like Ireland or the Netherlands, lower corporate taxes like in China (25%) or Korea (13%) as opposed to the U.S. (35%) and the states additional taxes (up to another 12% more), the RoI from making products cheap and selling them back to American pockets and the capability to store funds in offshore bank accounts to avoid taxes, like General Electric. All of which our legislation has been tooled to allow and needs to be addressed.

So.. let me see if I got your issues on Unions donating/collecting money down right.


It's BAD when a union supports politicians who support a generally pro-labor outlook. (Better work conditions, job security, wages and such)

but it's GOOD when folks like the Koch Brothers spend MILLIONS to eliminate known Carcinogens from the lists put out by the American Cancer society, pay even more MILLIONS to lobbyists, special interests and all the rest?

This is Union General, not me defending what Scott Walker and those who support him are doing.

[Jude]

You mean like how OSHA sets standards for minimum safety and health requirements, as does the federal established minimum wage? Free market theory suggests that corporations who desire employees of stronger skill set and reliability will pay more to hire and retain them. My current employer goes so far as to outline which training and habits will merit advancement and raises.

I don't understand how this part of your post relates to anything.  I was setting up a hypothetical example with what I said there.  If you don't think that hypothetical example would fit the reality of what you're supporting, I'd like to know why.

How would pooling money to lobby for Democratic candidates and lobbyists be any different than paying dues to an organization that does it for you? Well for one, I'd like to think the money would go to candidates who are interested in protecting EVERY worker instead of just those who are members of unions.

Union dues right now do not go solely to lobby efforts.  That's part of it, but much of it goes to assist workers with filing for compensation if they're injured, resolving disputes with management, and contract negotiations.  If you get rid of unions, who's going to be paying the dues for that?  The answer is simple:  the American People.  Axing unions and putting that workload on the government is essentially requiring every person in the United States to support these efforts which used to be paid for exclusively by union members.  This is a stone's throw away from mandating every single person in the United States to join a government sponsored union; though it'll be governmental officials instead of "union fatcats."

How much less private would it be than being forced to identify with a union who possibly doesn't represent your views? "Most countries that rely on private donations to fund campaigns require extensive disclosure of donations, frequently including information such as the name, employer and address of donors. This is intended to allow for policing of undue donor influence by other campaigns or by good government groups, while preserving most benefits of private financing." All it would do is level the field for individuals who are already forced to disclose their personal information. Isn't an equal chance for everyone something a democrat would drive for?

You raise legitimate concerns here, but there are ways to solve these issues without dissolving unions entirely.  Just pass Right To Work legislation and require unions to disclose more information.  I'm all for reform, not annihilation.

Typically it comes down to the pay. Union negotiated pay increases hurt many businesses by forcing them to cut jobs and services, export jobs overseas (where it's cheaper), and raise the prices of goods to compensate for the decrease in profit. I don't know why profit is such a bad word on this board. It's a difference between money generated by normal business activities and cost, as Apple has established, workers fall under. Looking at the technical terms a little more closely, I understand what he meant.

Profit isn't a bad word.  It's why businesses exist.  It's why people work.  We demonize corporations for their greed while forgetting that every single employee shares their goal at least in part.  Working is about making money every bit as much as running a business is about being profitable.

You claim that unions caused businesses to move overseas, but the facts simply don't agree with you there.  We started to bleed manufacturing jobs after Reagan's crackdown on the unions, not before.  I'm not implying a causal link the other way however, we lost manufacturing jobs for another reason entirely.  Even without wages that have been exaggerated by union influence to the tune of 20 or 30 percent in certain industries (I don't actually have the numbers, I am pulling them out of my ass, but even if the numbers are higher my point stands), we can't compete with laborers that have an incredibly low standard of living in the third world because they work for what is a fraction of our federally mandated minimum wage here.

The only way America can be competitive and continue to charge what we do for our labor is if we can offer something that other countries do not, because we're always going to lose the cost-cutting war.  We simply live better than they do, so we'll never be able to work for less.

We do still have to worry about competing with Europe and other industrialized nations when it comes to careers that require a lot of specialized training and education, but those areas aren't unionized.  We also don't have to worry about competing globally in any industry that can't be imported, such as (most) services, like education.  Thus teacher's unions really only represent a problem of governmental insolvency if they're asking for unreasonable compensation.  I can't say whether they are or not because I haven't seen good statistics on matter -- every comparison I've seen is the average worker versus the Wisconsin teachers, they're not comparing average bachelor degree holders, so it's an invalid comparison.  Even then, don't you want the people who are spending almost more time with your children than you are to be well compensated?

Most profit is reinvested into the business to make sure it can sustain itself as business climate and technology evolve. Unions infringe upon that capacity, usually passing the cost on to the consumer. Considering how low the profit margin is on the food industry already, I can see why McDonald's and other restaurants avoid them like the plague.

Unions are most definitely bad for a corporation's profitability.  And this can also be bad for its long term growth.  If the company is just barely scraping by because it's losing too much of its profit margin to union demands then it doesn't have the funds to invest in capital for growth; you're absolutely right.  Of course, there are also a lot of industries out there that make record profits while giving their CEOs gigantic bonuses and basically leaving the lower 3/4s of their staff with meager salary increases and poor benefits.  I'm not denying that unions hurt some industries, but you seem to be denying that unionization could help exploited workers in others.

You complain about tax rates while wanting to add another governmental responsibility on top of the pile.  You advocate what amounts to a large degree of socialism (heavy-handed governmental intrusion into the labor markets) while arguing that it would be good for capitalism.  I am seeing so many fundamental contradictions in what you're saying because I don't think you're being very straightforward in what you really think needs to happen.  You want unions to go by the wayside so that corporations can pay their employees less and become more profitable, all because you're possessed by this misguided notion that corporate wealth means a wealthy America.

Well, I think you've missed a memo.  Corporations in the current era have discovered that they can increase their profitability by tossing away allegiance to any nation.  Businesses are mercenaries now; they're loyal to whoever offers them the best conditions to be profitable.  Everything is global.  If we get rid of unions and remove impediments on their ability to be profitable, there's nothing stopping other nations from doing the same.  It'll be a race to the bottom:  one we're going to lose because we have a lot longer of a way to go than people in China who are already circling the drain.  And that doesn't even begin to consider the residents of that largely untapped swath of poverty-stricken land known as Africa -- they're basically in the pipes, or the sewage runoff.

The manufacturing jobs are gone and they are not coming back no matter how any times we cut our corporate tax rates; that's basically just slitting our wrists in protest at this point.  Corporations that stay in America will do so for one of two reasons:

1)  Because they have to.
You can't serve someone fast food in New York from India.

2)  Because they can't find the labor that they need in other countries cheaper.
Because the workers that they want simply don't exist there.  We need an educated, skilled, and flexible workforce.

If we don't let the bottom of the workforce unionize then they're simply going to be exploited by the rest of us.  Some of that cost needs to be passed on to the consumer because we have a responsibility to take care of the least of us.  I'd rather that be happening by the natural forces of corporate and labor relations than having government mandated increases to the minimum wage which are ultimately engines of inflation and an assault on middle income earners (that isn't to say I'm against the minimum wage entirely, I just think it needs to be raised sparingly).

Now, you might think that from my post I've had good experiences with unions in my life or that I am in a union myself.  Neither of those is true.  I've watched my father get treated like crap every time that a union contract is close to expiring because of the flighty pre-Madonna way in which they go about negotiating.  I've seen so many bad teachers in the public education system, such as an English teacher who for some reason instructs high school students on math that ruined many of my friend's ability/interest in the subject.  Because education is so important, I abhor terrible teachers, and I do think that the union protects them in many cases.

We need reform.  I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but telling people that they can't organize into unions and use their collective influence to bargain with their employer?  That seems like a ridiculous prohibition that denies people freedom in the name of corporate profitability.  I just can't support that.

[itsbeenfun2000]

Something that kicked into my mined as I was reading Jude's comments. The NEA has a PAC dollar that each member of its union may contribute, it is not mandatory, that amounts to $10 per member if they contribute. That is solely for lobbying. The state/national/local dues for my association, yes I am a teacher, is $660.

Jude is right, most of that money goes to negotiations, and legal fees for the association. Each local association is assigned a regional rep that gets paid a salary. He or she usually has a negotiation background or legal background. Of course they have support staff that work with them. So a good amount of our dues go to paying people.

A large amount of our dues go to training local members for leadership positions. Each year the state and national associations have conventions. The people doing the training are of course paid. Before I get the cynical "they are training you to do work stoppages or slowdowns" I teach in Illinois. There has not been a major strike in Illinois for quite awhile. We try to avoid them it is not good for the public relations of the school district or the teachers. A lot of that training money goes into what is called win-win, or mutual interest bargaining where both sides of the table are trained to negotiate mutual interests for the district. The negotiations is not confrontational this way. Until salary it is a problem solving dialogue that takes quite awhile but is worth it because both sides come up with solutions to problems that they can live with. This by the way is what Walker wants to get rid of.

I will also point out that most of the districts have allready taken pay cuts, freezes, or lower raises since the recession.

[HairyHeretic]

Perhaps a better question would have been if I'd believed that were the only reason. Relevant to this subject, it's certainly a contributing factor. As are I'm guessing related tax incentives, better tax rates like Ireland or the Netherlands, lower corporate taxes like in China (25%) or Korea (13%) as opposed to the U.S. (35%) and the states additional taxes (up to another 12% more), the RoI from making products cheap and selling them back to American pockets and the capability to store funds in offshore bank accounts to avoid taxes, like General Electric. All of which our legislation has been tooled to allow and needs to be addressed.

All of which would seem to be done to minimise production and other costs, and maximise profits.