Unions do more damage

[aztecwin]

xrl.us/bhnxjo

Watching this video is a hoot. When will those folks wake up and realize that they are running out of other peoples money to spend? How many Cities and States must go under before people start to catch on that we all must live within our means?

[AztecWilliam]

it's always great to see these non-controversial threads! ;D

Alright, here's what we should keep in mind. Labor unions started in the late 19Th and early 20Th Centuries, an era in which unskilled or semi-skilled workers had to work long and hard hours and endure the unpredictable treatment of the owners and managers. (May I suggest that we also keep in mind that those nasty "robber barrons" were busy creating the industrial base whose benefits we all enjoy.)

Management was fool enough not to respond proactively when the labor movement began. In all likelihood, small concessions regarding wages and working conditions would have blunted much of the impetus for workers to organize. They did not react proactively, and unions slowly grew in power.

A fascinating chapter in the history of labor-management relations was the case of Ford motor company. Henry Ford, who had astounded the industrial world with his policy of $5.00 a day wages for workers in the teens, became very reactionary as he aged. He placed Harry Bennett, who was essentially a thug, in charge of Ford security. Most notorious of Bennett's actions was the infamous Battle of the Overpass, during which Walter Reuther and a couple of his co-union organizers were beaten by Ford goons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Overpass) The whole thing was captured on film. . . a major black eye for Ford Motor Company. (The first action of Henry Ford the II when he became president of FoMoCo in 1945 was to fire Bennett's ass!)

That was in 1937. Four years later Henry Ford was forced to relent and recognize the UAW. By 1945, about 35% of U.S. workers were unionized. That percentage has gone down consistently since then. Except in the are of government workers unions. And now we have unions that wield very great power, so much power that they have been able to "convince" governments at various levels to grant very generous wage and retirement benefits, benefits which have put local and state governments near the verge of bankruptcy.

I'd like to make a point that is seldom, if ever articulated. Union leaders often proclaim their goal to be the improvement of worker's lives. I don't argue with that. However, in making such a statement they leave out a very important fact. What they are after is improvement for unionized workers. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is this; when it's a civil service union that seeks improvements, it is the non-unionized workers, the taxpayers, who mus pay for those benefits. With so much political power the civil service workers are able to force governments to grant concessions that a private firm would never be able to pay. Certainly not in the long run. (We need only to look at the UAW's benefits regarding the infamous "jobs bank" and the early retirement of workers that were won in negotiations with GM. GM went bankrupt largely because it had become a retirement and health plan that built cars as a sideline.)

Take a look at those TV reports from Greece and you will see the ultimate nightmare of governments so influenced by unions that are forced (perhaps due to lack of backbone, I admit) to grant unrealistic benefits to workers. When economic realities become unavoidable, the politicians may say "No, the taxpayers are not going to pay that much." The reaction of the workers is to deny those economic realities and then to go on strike. In the case of Greece, there have been at least three deaths due to worker riots. Nice.

Workers not in government unions have had to take significant wage cuts in the U.S. and, in many cases, even lost their jobs. Meanwhile, civil service union workers are feeling no such pain. And if they are told that the government is running out of other people's money, they get very cranky.

Unless everyone, including members of civil service unions, wise up, this whole thing is not going to end well.

AzWm

PS: For the record, my father was a UAW member, working at Douglas Aircraft, for nearly 40 years. And my family, in 1952, had to endure a strike against the company. Though he was a member, my father was never much of a fan of the UAW.

[aztecwin]

Interesting little history lesson for us all. There was a time and place for the union movement and it would be hard to make a case for the time when children were the equivalent of slaves and folks were in debt to the "company store" with no hope of ever getting out.

Your point about the unions in government is very interesting. I was involved when the organization where I worked became unionized. I was never directly effected, because my grade made me part of management. We sort of benefited from whatever gains in working conditions and travel rules that lower grade folks were granted. What we saw as a result of that change was the change from a team approach to our business of troubleshooting problems on Navy Ships all over the Pacific, to one that was at times very polarized and charged with petty disputes. What many of us don't remember, but what you pointed out, is that management was bargaining with taxpayer money. That is a little bit different than what big business faces. Big Business must answer to both shareholders and the unions. It is a very hard and complex situation.

I had not expected this kind of thoughtful reply. I had thought that folks would comment on how stupid and naive the picketers were acting and that they had no idea where the money, that they wanted to be shown, was coming from.

At any rate, this could develop into an interesting thread.

[AztecWilliam]

Whenever one complains that unions (the UAW is the poster child for this) get overly generous compensation and benefits that harm business, someone on the other side always comes up with the standard reply. Well, management agreed to theses deals. They resulted from bargaining during which both sides made their arguments. Why complain?

All that is true to a point. But here's what is left out of the discussion all too often. It's very hard for a company to operate without workers. If the union (i.e., the grunts on the assembly line, not the union organizers) is willing to stay out long enough, the company must eventually cave. Sure, it it's a long strike, the union may back down some, but over the years this whole process has a ratcheting effect that tends to make the union a type of co-owner along with the stockholders. The difference is that the stockholders' money was at stake. The unions, almost totally absorbed with a get-as-much-as-we-can-right-now philosophy, never looked ahead and asked themselves, Where will this company be 5, 10, to 20 years from now? Good business persons, on the other hand, had better look ahead or they will fail. (Yes, yes, I know; plenty of them got to thinking of short-term profits. Nobody ever said the blame could be put on one side only.)

With the threat of strikes, companies have a strong incentive to give in just to maintain labor peace. Let the management ten years from now worry about this; I will be retired and living in Florida. I'll give you a prime example of this. The Studebaker car company was notorious for never standing up to the UAW. They took pride in having good labor relations. The problem was, the cost of good labor relations was a per car labor cost far above the other companies. That fact, among others, led to the company abandoning the car business in 1966 after over a century building vehicles of various kinds.

I do believe that labor unions are much more realistic today than before (except for govt. employee unions, who seem to feel that taxpayers' wealth has no limits). But by now the damage has been done.

AzWm

[sdtosf]

Wall Street needs to live within its means instead of creating bubbles and letting the people on main street (stock losses, home value declines) pay for their million dollar apartments in the sky!

[aztecwin]

Jun 7, 2010 21:01:24 GMT -8 sdtosf said:

Wall Street needs to live within its means instead of creating bubbles and letting the people on main street (stock losses, home value declines) pay for their million dollar apartments in the sky!

This detraction has what to do with the subject?

[sdtosf]

CEO's and Wall Street do more short term damage then do unions.

[aztecwin]

Jun 8, 2010 11:16:31 GMT -8 sdtosf said:

CEO's and Wall Street do more short term damage then do unions.

Hardly, start a thread with some facts.

[sdtosf]

Where are your facts on this thread?? All opinion here.

[AztecBill]

John F. Kennedy changed the law and allowed government workers to unionize. Since then government workers, at all levels, went from being paid under the national average for their job category to well over the national average in addition to very good benefits including sweetheart retirement at a young age.

The government should change the law back and phase out unions. If one works for the government, let it be at levles the government must pay to attract and keep workers.

[aztecwin]

Jun 9, 2010 16:02:16 GMT -8 AztecBill said:

John F. Kennedy changed the law and allowed government workers to unionize. Since then government workers, at all levels, went from being paid under the national average for their job category to well over the national average in addition to very good benefits including sweetheart retirement at a young age.

The government should change the law back and phase out unions. If one works for the government, let it be at levles the government must pay to attract and keep workers.

I agree about the unions and the pay levels. The one really big item that should be solved before all others is not the current pay or work rules, but the pension system should not be one giant unfunded liability. Have the pension owned by the employee and funded from current accounts. I don't even see anyuthing really wrong with the FERS retirement at age 55 if the pension part were also owned and funded out of current accounts. Perhaps the entire FERS system should be a little better Thrift Savings Plan. that is the biggest part of my Civil Service retirement now and it is all owned by me and was funded "pay as you go".