Unions

Given the wide range of ideologies on this board, I’d like to test a concept on you guys to see if anyone can find a chip in my armor.

I’m a process engineer and one of my favorite problem solving tools is something called TRIZ which, at its heart, strives to identify the contradiction that’s found at the root of all issues.

I’ve applied TRIZ to the union issues we’re currently facing and this is the contradiction I came up with:

A vertical balance of power is desired but doing so creates a horizontal imbalance of power.

So, unions are desirable in that they prevent company owners from mistreating their workers (vertical) but in so doing, the union workers themselves effectively assume the role of non unionized company owners in terms of their mistreatment of all those that don’t belong to the union (horizontal).

I’d be funny if the stakes weren’t so high but all the debates raging in the media right now can be attributed to a failure to appreciate this very simple contradiction.

“Unions are great…they’ve brought us so many important labor laws and have prevented the rich from enslaving the masses” – True on the vertical dimension.

“Unions are destroying us…the few that are fortunate enough to belong to them enjoy far better compensation and security than the masses that are enslaved by them” – True on the horizontal dimension.

Thoughts?

I think that the right to band together for leverage against exploitive labor conditions is important.

But it also seems that once an amicable agreement is reached, unions start looking for reasons to justify their continued existence - and that's when the entitlement issues and general stupidity begin.

Well said, and having belonged to one for almost 20 years, I agree entirely.

I expect this will get flounder'd up in a hurry.

As for me, I like pie. Apple and pumpkin are my favorite.

Unions were a wonderful thing when Business Overlords made you work in horrible, unsafe conditions. Unions got you the five day work week. Unions got you more money for doing a good job. Unions got workers to hold together and fight for rights. If management didn't comply, workers would walk off the job, strike.

As a Federal employee, it's illegal to strike the Feds; witness Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers. So how strong can my Union be? Not very? They're sleeping with the ties, very few here are members.

Did Unions work for the UAW folks or big places like GE? Absolutely. Is their service worth the added cost to a product? Who can say?

In New York Unions are so strong that it's impossible to downsize the State worker fleet. Having "done more with less" since Reagan, you know, someone retires and everything on his desk gets divided among the survivors, I can't believe that any organization cannot be 1% more effecient. The Unions will not allow it. Teachers' unions and State workers unions are tighter than the Mafia.

For better or worse they're here to stay. TRIZ is totally logical, that doesn't work once you toss in a few dollars and politicians.

But that's only my two cents.

Dan

Oh yeah, it's gonna get floundered or locked real quick.

nderwater wrote: I think that the right to band together for leverage against exploitive labor conditions is important. But it also seems that once an amicable agreement is reached, unions start looking for reasons to justify their continued existence - and that's when the entitlement issues and general stupidity begin.

What's interesting is that may "entitlements" used to be fringe benefits to working for someone. Healthcare, for instance, is mostly part of a benefit package to lure someone into a company. Bonuses are the same thing.

Where I see unions doing bad is a bad service unto themselves- that they are all equal to each other. So by their definition, the fool that sits back and waits until overtime to start "sweeping" the floor is equal to the skilled millright who manages to make parts faster than most can. That started the downfall.

You can make the same inference for teachers, and it's killing their union image, too.

Every work force is generally skilled as a bell curve. But when you can't do anything of the sub performers, nor can you intice the over performers, you are stuck.

Because of this, management hasn't played all that fairly in terms of compensation at times (and who can blame them, when the Union claims that each person is a commidity, and not a skill), and unions (some) have had to play hardball. Thus making the entire situation worse.

Never ending spiral.

nderwater wrote: I think that the right to band together for leverage against exploitive labor conditions is important.

Word. As someone who has studied some economics (enough to get a piece of paper worthless outside of the UK), I would also suggest the can provide an important part of overall balance in the economy.

TBH if you're running a union and the people who have to negotiate with you don't want you abolished, declared illegal or have the National Guard sent after you, you're probably doing something wrong. OK, I exaggerate a little but the point should be clear.

Don't forget that in times and places with a failing or non-existent safety net, unions also at least used to provide some of that.

nderwater wrote: But it also seems that once an amicable agreement is reached, unions start looking for reasons to justify their continued existence - and that's when the entitlement issues and general stupidity begin.

I've seen some of that in Germany, where labor unions still play a very big role and have become essentially big organisations (yes, also political organisations) separate from the people they represent. And the system there still works...

I would think that these days you probably could channel a lot of that energy to counter the barrage of lobbying from the anti-union side of the bench and that would serve as a big enough task to justify their existence. Please note that I'm not saying either side has a monopoly on being right or 'the truth', but we need balance in that discussion.

I can appreciate the protection from abusive employer practices like 7-day, 12-hour work weeks and the idea of apprenticeship/professional training for the trades. I don't like taking a decent idea and escalating it to the ridiculous like not being able to fire a bad employee or barriers to entry of doing the work you want to do. Same deal on the pension side of it - good for you if you get one - but they have been mismanaged and looted to the point of the ridiculous and more importantly to the point of costing consumers/taxpayers much more than the value produced.

914Driver wrote: Oh yeah, it's gonna get floundered or locked real quick.

We're almost through a page without a really flounder-ey flounder. Civility must be "in" this season.

Wait.

alfadriver wrote:

nderwater wrote: I think that the right to band together for leverage against exploitive labor conditions is important. But it also seems that once an amicable agreement is reached, unions start looking for reasons to justify their continued existence - and that's when the entitlement issues and general stupidity begin.

What's interesting is that may "entitlements" used to be fringe benefits to working for someone. Healthcare, for instance, is mostly part of a benefit package to lure someone into a company. Bonuses are the same thing. Where I see unions doing bad is a bad service unto themselves- that they are all equal to each other. So by their definition, the fool that sits back and waits until overtime to start "sweeping" the floor is equal to the skilled millright who manages to make parts faster than most can. That started the downfall. You can make the same inference for teachers, and it's killing their union image, too. Every work force is generally skilled as a bell curve. But when you can't do anything of the sub performers, nor can you intice the over performers, you are stuck. Because of this, management hasn't played all that fairly in terms of compensation at times (and who can blame them, when the Union claims that each person is a commidity, and not a skill), and unions (some) have had to play hardball. Thus making the entire situation worse. Never ending spiral.

Good post.

Unions are like Craigslist, eBay and most civilizations:

They all work out great in the beginning, but once a few a-holes figure out how the game the system, it all goes to hell.

BTW 914's comment about them being tighter then the "Mafia", I read that as tighter then a "Miata".... weird.

BoxheadTim wrote: I've seen some of that in Germany, where labor unions still play a very big role and have become essentially big organisations (yes, also political organisations) separate from the people they represent. And the system there still works...

And unions aren't political organizations here?! Unions in the US, most notably SCIU, has been funding political candidates and lobbying Congress for years.

Unions have created an economic system where companies exist to pay for employee benefits, not produce goods and make a profit. This is the reason the American automakers have been at such a disadvantage as compared with foreign owned, US built vehicles. Unions have their place in history, but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy.

Today, if a company makes me work long hours in terrible conditions for very little money I find a better job and get the hell out of there. That's capitalism. Companies that make a good product, turn a profit, and treat their employees well will enjoy the cream of the crop, while craphole corporations will get to pick from the bottom of the barrel.

Why should Ohio Turnpike toll booth workers (unskilled cashiers) be making $66k per year? That's obscene.

YaNi wrote: Unions have created an economic system where companies exist to pay for employee benefits, not produce goods and make a profit. This is the reason the American automakers have been at such a disadvantage as compared with foreign owned, US built vehicles. Unions have their place in history, but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy.

If you look at annual reports, the data suggests quite otherwise. Not that labor is a major cost, but apparently, it's not THE major cost. So.

As for the payments for goods- that's an evil of our economic model- make and sell stuff. It's far, far beyond basic living, and gone bezerk. So it IS about paying benefits so that they can buy stuff, thus helping other stuff makers. I think, at least.

YaNi wrote: " but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy" Lots and lots of overnight stockers at understaffed Walmarts would greatly disagree..

triumph5 wrote: YaNi wrote: " but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy" Lots and lots of overnight stockers at understaffed Walmarts would greatly disagree..

Why do they stay there if their job is so horrible? Do they not have the intelligence to find a better job or work harder and get promoted?

YaNi wrote:

triumph5 wrote: YaNi wrote: " but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy" Lots and lots of overnight stockers at understaffed Walmarts would greatly disagree..

Why do they stay there if their job is so horrible? Do they not have the intelligence to find a better job or work harder and get promoted?

In my view, the contradiction statement I offered explains both of these points.

...thoughts?

triumph5 wrote: YaNi wrote: " but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy"

Lots and lots of overnight stockers at understaffed Walmarts would greatly disagree..

In their non-union stores, where many have found a first or second job just to get by, and the managers treat them like garbage, and berate them for genuine on the job injuries, lock them in so they can't leave on time, even though they are now working off the clock, "by the way, do this and that". And try to deny any and all vacation time earned as they will then be "understaffed." Screw-over your employees in a smallish community and word gets around from more than a few individuals. Just sayin.

oldtin wrote: I can appreciate the protection from abusive employer practices like 7-day, 12-hour work weeks

If you came to Alberta, I bet 30% of the population here would call that a normal job

YaNi wrote:

triumph5 wrote: YaNi wrote: " but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy" Lots and lots of overnight stockers at understaffed Walmarts would greatly disagree..

Why do they stay there if their job is so horrible? Do they not have the intelligence to find a better job or work harder and get promoted?

Nothing else is available, and they need their day jobs. Promoted? Frowned upon by mgmt. And many are trying to pay off massive medical bills their primary day job's insurance didn't cover. It's rock and a hard place. I know of one who is a teacher by day, and stocks at night to cover medical bills. And she has a Masters in Education. Daycare for a child with MS is horrendously expensive.

Why don't we all complain like a certain european country where the retirement age is being debated to be raised from 60 to 62, with a month off for vacation while employed...

alfadriver wrote:

YaNi wrote: Unions have created an economic system where companies exist to pay for employee benefits, not produce goods and make a profit. This is the reason the American automakers have been at such a disadvantage as compared with foreign owned, US built vehicles. Unions have their place in history, but no longer have a purpose for existing for except to protect the lazy.

If you look at annual reports, the data suggests quite otherwise. Not that labor is a major cost, but apparently, it's not THE major cost. So.

IIRC labor cost seems to average around 13% of the cost of (the production of) goods overall, which tends to surprise people. For some products it's likely to be a little higher but still not that much.

Then again, the production and sale of goods doesn't tend to make one that much money anymore in the commodity markets. Nonetheless a lot of the larger manufacturers with slim margins are making a lot of their profit financing said goods...

alfadriver wrote: As for the payments for goods- that's an evil of our economic model- make and sell stuff. It's far, far beyond basic living, and gone bezerk. So it IS about paying benefits so that they can buy stuff, thus helping other stuff makers. I think, at least.

Henry Ford figured that out early last century and was considered to be nuts to pay his workers well. What all those people who called him names for this move forgot was that (a) I doubt Ford had any problem finding good skilled workers and got to choose who to hire and (b) with a fairly reasonable amount of savings, the workers could also purchase the goods they make. Given that they knew what they were building that's good free advertising right there.

And that's before we get to the issue that the cost of not providing certain benefits to your employees is actually higher on society as a whole than providing it (health care being one example, but that's a kettle of fish we should leave unopened here).