In the one experience I've had in a unit where a union was being considered, at the Library of Congress, it happened I had started working there just after the deadline to vote for getting in union representation. This hadn't been conveyed to the union organizers, and they continued to show up and argue with me for support after I told them to go away.

In like manner, management had quotas for enrolling for payroll deductions to the Combined Federal Campaign. When the first representative came by, I told her that my charitable contributions were a matter between the charity, the IRS, and myself, and I wasn't going to sign up. My boss, pressured by his boss, then pleaded with me to sign up. After saying no again, I was called in, with other miscreants, to his GS-17 supergrade boss, and again was lectured.

Both of these experiences came across as coercive. If checkoff cards were in, would I have a guarantee that union organizers would not continue to try to get me to sign if I said NO the first time?

Your analogy with shareholders doesn't hold. As a shareholder, I am not involved in the day-to-day operation of the company. I can choose to buy stock, or not to buy stock, in a company that pulls too many shareholder suppression games.

When I was in a bargaining unit, where the union was voted in after I had started, the union representatives could and did insist on sitting in meetings between managers and myself, dealing with compensation, reviews, and other factors that they thought they could bargain. I thought it was my own damn business.

Sorry, shareholder representation and union oversight of my direct interactions with my rating managers are as equivalent as apples and broccoli.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I have mixed feelings about unions, and I consider the issue bogus.  The issue, as every issue about unions, is either to give 'em power or to take it away.

As to unions, the idea of unions is very powerful.  Why let the monopsonist  set the terms of employment?  Actualized unions seem very different from conceptual unions.  Membership is divided into many constituents, which union "leadership" can therefore manipulate, and union "leadership" appears more interested in aggrandizement of perks and power than in providing a balance against the monopsony power of employers.  I say this based on anecdotal observation from having been a member of several unions over the years.

The results of unions are mixed.  I would like to work in an environment where the employer is very afraid the employees will unionize (but is not about to use vicious underhanded tactics to prevent it).  This would gain most of the benefits of being unionized without having to suffer any of the disadvantages.

In my current employment, which is unionized, sensible decisions get booted down the calendar because they *might* be bargaining items.  This is ridiculous.

Back to the issue at hand, corporations are not speaking in employee behalf when they fight union processes.  That is JUST a cover for union busting practices.  Corporations care about corporations, principally about the Board and the senior management. 

It's kind of funny when there is such worry over such a small component of the labor force. Those that distrust unions should be content that there are so few workers in any union.

I haven't seen any credible arguments showing that unions hurt business or the country in general. That internal politics can get ugly is not a mark against unions in general, but a reason to have better transparency in union management.

There are many more stories of internal corruption in business management than in unions, and we still promote business, because it is not management as an idea that is bad. We do, however, ask for (or used to ask for) regulation by the SEC and other bodies to ensure good practices.  

If a union has corrupt management, that is the fault of the members and not the union itself. And it's hard to see how constitutional it is to inhibit the right of workers to peaceably assemble. I am much more exercised over business practices, that have been upheld in court, to the effect of precluding the Bill of Rights from the workplace. Especially if these are valid, there is no rationale to raise personal-liberty arguments against unions. 

Blaming unions for the decline of manufacture is a laugh--we are still leaders in aerospace, highly unionized, AFIK. We are losing out in autos because the management thought it could rest on its laurels. It was not the auto workers union that decided the front brake engineer should never talk to the rear brake team (GM). It was not the union that decided to keep making stupid, big cars with poor mileage and poor handling. It was the boss.

Mr. Berkowitz writes. . .

In like manner, management had quotas for enrolling for payroll deductions to the Combined Federal Campaign. When the first representative came by, I told her that my charitable contributions were a matter between the charity, the IRS, and myself, and I wasn't going to sign up. My boss, pressured by his boss, then pleaded with me to sign up. After saying no again, I was called in, with other miscreants, to his GS-17 supergrade boss, and again was lectured.

I'm reading this that it was management, not the Union which applied the pressure.  Is this right?  If so, it would seem that this is exactly the kind of situation where union representation could be helpful.  Were I in a similar situation, and my boss, considering me a miscreant, tried to punish me for being non-cooperative in ways as unsubtle as hectoring me or as subtle as altering deadlines or giving me less desirable tasks or moving me to a less desirable desk, I would have a union grievance committee and a contract to equalize the power, and, in situations where abuses were really threatening, the possibility of raising complaints of abusive behavior in ways which protected my anonymity.  One can tell the organizer to "go away".  One has less ability to tell the same to the GS-17 supergrade boss, though both may be royal pains in the neck.

aMike

Labor laws and safety regulations have eliminated a lot of the need for unions now and it's clear the union US auto plants vs non-union US Toyota plants are at a distinct disadvantage. It's getting harder for unions to complain about auto jobs going overseas with Toyota opening up a new non-union plant here every year, creating thousands of new auto manufacturing jobs.

The perceived refusal of unions to adapt and evolve in a global economy may spell their ultimate doom.

I would be happy with actual unions IF I thought there were a way to resolve their worst characteristics. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any. Union leadership is not necessarily drawn from the best ranks of the employees.

It's called democracy. Unionized employees can work to reform their own workplace. Non-unionized employees largely cannot, though there are exceptions. In any event, I wouldn't say our political leaders are always drawn from the best ranks of society either -- just the most well-heeled -- but that doesn't stop you from trying to influence things as a citizen, does it?

By the way, why are you so angry that I called you anti-union, before saying in the next breath that you're not happy with unions? (It follows logically from saying you'd be happy with unions if X, but X isn't the case.)

I freely admit my direct experience with unions is limited. The one time I was in a bargaining unit, the union leaders seemed more interested in power than improving the work environment; they seemed to see their worth measured in the confrontations in which they were involved.

My other interactions were in such things as not being allowed to set up a teaching lab in a hotel or trade show exhibit in a convention center, because "that was union work". We would have to bend our schedules around the union's.

In principle, I can see how a union might help employees in a large business or government organization, although I don't know how they could function in a small business. Call this a plea for help: I'd like to have some confidence that if I do bring them into my workplace, they simply won't add another layer of frustration. How they would help in a small, privately-held company also baffles me.

I am willing to listen, but the argument about the union having to be brought in by other than secret ballot, before it can show what it can do, utterly baffles me.

I am Dilbert, hear me whine.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I wouldn't consider the CFC competition friendly, but something by which top management looks good, and pressures everyone below them to make quota. Quotas are very obviousm, with big "thermometers" in each office.

Ironically, a good friend of mine had a horrible workplace in a Federal agency. It's truly strange to see three levels of PhD psychologists trying to drive each other crazy. Her only recognition by the Secretary was in her role as CFC "coordinator", which her boss told her to do -- it wasn't really volunteer, and took up a lot of work time. On the other hand, since White House operatives were telling her upper management to suppress scientific results that might offend voting blocs, she had extra time.

From my personal experience, I was repeatedly lectured and cajoled to contribute, taking up a great deal of work time.

The only similarity of this to a union is that the union organizers kept after people to sign petitions.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Another point worth making, Nathan, is that corporations are very happy when they have undemocratic unions that squelch worker unrest and very unhappy when they have democratic unions that seek to lead worker unrest. In such situations concern for union democracy on the part of a corporation is non-existent.

Morale in government service is not the highest. Unpleasant things are not uncommon in offices.

None of this has much to do with arguments for and against unionization.

I do understand, however, that in Europe, virtually everyone in the workplace, except the highest placed executives in a firm are union members, making for much greater solidarity both in the workplace and outside of it. There is hardly any of of this wedge creation between manager and worker that has developed here in the US.

I rate you a "1" because you improperly impute my mood to me.  Such imputation has the effect of dismissing what I say.  As to my choice of swearing, I am responding to your presumption to tell me how to spend my time, which I find annoying.

Are you missing something?  Yes.

20-50 employees, certainly. The nature of a small technology company will be a lot less formal than most academic institutions. Having worked in private industry both small and large, federal government, and university environments, I found the academic one much like the bureaucracy, except without the efficiency.

I still don't see why the check-off system is a better solution than fixing the NLRB. Easier, especially for the unions, perhaps. Better, no.

Incidentally, while I had my problems with other unions, especially the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, my relationships with the Communications Workers of America, at least in the DC area, were excellent. A key thing with CWA is that they were very aware of the pace of technology in their industry and the need to keep retraining. Not every customer treated them fairly; I remember one project in the early seventies, where we assigned coffee cups to the two people assigned to our facility, just like anyone else joining the staff. One Bell technician literally got tears in his eyes, saying we were the first place to welcome him in ten years of work.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I think you are misreading some of what I said, and what is your point about "you have said it, no one else"?

I did not observe that

being asked to join a union was not much different than being asked to contribute to charity

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Tivo, I live on this planet, where you can turn on the TV and see trial attorneys trolling for accident victims on a daily basis. El Campesino is right -- the threat of lawsuits and government fines keeps most companies in line -- union or not.

The union went in during that time. Before the elections, the organizers would keep bugging me about it even though I was ineligible. After the elections, they were constantly after me to join.

My reluctance to join was not a philosophical matter; it was lack of a clear idea of how they would help.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I was a Union Member, it did have it's problems. I wasn't always in agreement, but I realized the importance of COLLECTIVE bargaining.

I believe if "We the People unite, in a COLLECTIVE  agreement, WE can achieve, what we want in a healthcare system, for all Americans.

Not dependant on working the whole family, to achieve the goal.

We could eliminate the need for Union Representation in this area. All employers would have to participate "NO FREE RIDERS"

Worker retraining, sufficient retirement, and whatever the working class in America could reasonably expect from the Collective Compact, that 'We the people",  expect from the Government of WE the people, we can make it  happen. No more FREE RIDERS, no more importing cheap goods, made by exploited workers, Everything sold in the US has to have the cost of the entitlements factored in,

By making the entitlement playing field level, Employers, would only have to address, what their employees are paid.  The employees would no longer be forced to work, for fear of not having healthcare. Maybe mom could stay home and nurture the next generation?

The pressure would be on the employer to pay a decent wage to attract and retain good workers. The workers in turn could reject, or accept the wage offered, literally a free and open, supply and demand for labor. Competition would prevail.

If the Capitalists don't agree, that such a system would insure fairness for all, business and labor, then By God, strengthen the Union Movement, to achieve worker goals.

As a member of the working class, I'll support my class in this struggle, despite it's shortcomings. Capitalist's have an opportunity to do the right thing now, if not, who knows what will happen. 

You have 4 different scenarios, although 2 are similar.   All these are related to the issue I previously raised about free trade with countries that have inadequate social benefits.  Only one is at all hard.

For number one, suppose the effective cost of our social benefits is $5 per hour.  Suppose country X has NO social benefits.  Then our tariff should be applied at $5 per hour on products they ship to us.  No problem.

For number two, suppose they have $1.25 per hour of our social benefits, do we have a tariff of $3.75 an hour?  Yes.

For number three, robots... Yes, this is the hard one.  But only slightly so.  I would apply the tariff based on actual social benefits in the sending country as calculated against actual value delivered to the working class in that country.  Robots are not part of the working class.  True efficiency, as compared with efficiency in the form of lower quality of life for actual workers, should not be penalized.

For number four, what about countries that have BETTER quality of life?  It is their problem what they do.  If they followed the same principles, they would charge us tariffs.

Oh, you ask what to do with the money?  Hmm... I heard we had a deficit. 

My observation was a general one, and some companies are better than others.

All I can say is that I spent 15 years working for the company that is now number 7 in the Fortune 500 list. I worked in both union and non-union facilities that they owned. The attitude toward EH&S was the same no matter what. EH&S was a very powerful organization in the company. I found that my employer was totally paranoid about worker safety claims and environmental compliance.

My currentl employer isn't that big, but still large enough that they take notice of the same things ($3 billion sales, 27,000 employees). Plus some of our bigger clients flow-down EH&S requirements because they are afraid of chain of responsibility lawsuits. We have clauses in some contracts that will terminate us if our OSHA recordables rise above certain levels.

So sure, bad things still happen in big companies. But to say that fear of regulation and of lawsuits doesn't affect company behavior positively isn't real.

A play taken right out of the Karl Marx playbook -- except it's already been tried and failed over and over.

Merica means well but has little understanding of how markets work and why companies would want to legally make shirts for $ 10, knowing the consumers will buy them on the huge black market (created by aforementioned misguided policies)for $ 5. Our law enforcement officials will spend all their time confiscating truckloads of t-shirts. This is just one example of the unintended consequences of too much government interference in the market. We've seen it fail over and over.

Our country went through stages of growth and development (some of them very painful), yet some want to inject economic growth hormone into other cultures, forcing our labor standards on them. These are the same people that accept the sheer brutality of a Saddam Hussein and recognize his "sovreign right" to run his country without interference.

NOT EVERY F***ING problem in the world is MY PROBLEM.

This might have had something to do with my deducing that you were angry. Surely, the substance matters more than personal pettiness -- on that I agree.

On March 2, 2007 - 9:03pm Brook Dataski said: A play taken right out of the Karl Marx playbook -- except it's already been tried and failed over and over.

It always seems that when workers rights come up in discussion Marx’s name is mentioned. I really didn’t know why, so I looked up his name and then followed leads to the subject of Class Struggle.

I thought this sums up both sides of the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle

Thus the capitalist would like as much "free time" (unpaid labor during official lunch breaks, after official closing time, etc.) and as much worker effort as possible. On the other hand, the workers would like to be paid for every minute they work under the capitalist's authority and would like to avoid unnecessary and unpaid effort. They would also prefer higher wages and benefits (such as health insurance, defined-benefit pensions, etc.) and less of a dictatorial or paternalistic attitude from employers. Working conditions must be safe and healthy, rather than dangerous.

Not all class struggle is violent or necessarily radical (as with strikes and lockouts). Class antagonism may instead be expressed as low worker morale, minor sabotage and pilferage, and individual workers' abuse of petty authority and hoarding of information. It may also be expressed on a larger scale by support for socialist or populist parties.

On the employers' side, the use of union-busting legal firms and the lobbying for anti-union laws are forms of class struggle.

Not all class struggle is a threat to capitalism and other systems of societal domination – or even to the authority of an individual capitalist. A narrow struggle for higher wages by a small sector of the working-class (what is often called "economism") hardly threatens the status quo. In fact, by applying "craft union" tactics of excluding other workers from skilled trades, an economistic struggle may even weaken the working class as a whole by dividing it. Class struggle becomes more important in the historical process as it becomes more general, as industries are organized rather than crafts, as workers' class consciousness rises, and as they are organized as political parties. Marx referred to this as the progress of the proletariat from being a class "in itself" (a position in the social structure) to being one "for itself" (an active and conscious force that could change the world).

Marx, argued that the objective conditions under capitalism would likely develop in a way that encouraged encouraged a proletariat organized collectively for its own goals to develop: the accumulation of surplus value as more means of production by the capitalists would allow them to become more and more powerful, encouraging overt class conflict. If this is not counteracted by increasing political and economic organization by workers, it would inevitably cause an extreme polarization of the classes, encouraging the revolution that would destroy capitalism itself.

Labor must become "for itself" a political party.

Because this mine was not unionized.

On January 18, 2006 mine owner International Coal Group (ICG) issued a press release objecting to United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) participation. "The UMWA is attempting to manipulate a provision of the federal regulations, [It] does not represent the employees at the mine...[and has] no familiarity or knowledge....that will benefit the investigation...[It] seeks to interfere with the investigation in order to exploit the tragedy...for [its] own purposes...to revive organizing efforts that have floundered for more than a decade." [28] (my emphasis)

The reason why those efforts "floundered" was union-busting activities by management...the kind of activities Nathan Newman decried in his original post.

aMike

Thanks, it looked to me as if he were just reiterating the same point.  But, I see your point.

When the law enforcement agents are not particularly interested in enforcing the law, the law isn't enforced.  Shipping untaxed goods across the border is not as easy as you pretend, unless the government helps.

Agree that the term is not helpful.

I do things both in and outside of union contract provisions. I am of mixed mind on various specifics but honor the achievements of unions to date. I also note the distortions of sensible process that came along with it. Somewhat like civil rights, there is justification for bending backward (some amount) in favor of unions, even though the safety and legal advances for workers are fairly secure.

I'm in an unusual situation in my orchestra, where we are more like a baseball team than an assembly line team. This is because we are not replaceable in the same way machinists are. (Our personalities are part of our product.) So our contract starts from the union base, but is much better. We could actually ditch the union, which is tempting since we are the major funders of the local. But when negotiations get nasty, we are grateful for the support of the national union. And our current sweet deal probably owes a lot to the the hard bargaining in the past.

So when dues are asked for I suck it up and chip in. However, my solo projects are not particularly helped by the union, since I have to operate at a loss to get things going. If I stuck with demanding scale I'd get zero gigs.

And I am LLC partner in a couple of ventures and find myself thinking about wages and employment questions from the ownership side. But that has not made me think unions are bad--it seems simply good management to look for contentment in the labor force. Employers should ask for better union management, not try to break the unions.

The current legislative battles are healthy, I think, by raising important issues. As long as equal attention is paid to management practices in both unions and employers I can't see the harm in bringing up questions of elections. There is some evidence, though, that NLRB has not enforced existing worker protections with enthusiasm.

Issues like that do come up. Our contract does allow individual contracts, which most principal players (concertmaster, lead trumpet, etc.) negotiate independently for over-scale and more time off.

More to your example is work distribution when not all are needed. In this case, management specifies the number of violas for a week's program (i.e. a small Mozart orchestra), and the section applies its own rotation rules. Sometimes there are specific player/management negotiations about whether to hire an extra player to replace someone out on sick leave or similar. The contract tries to address these anomalies but leaves some wiggle room.

The base contract is the same for all covered by group bargaining (e.g. not indiviual contracts). Seniority adds a small differential. We aren't paid according to decibel contribution, thankfully, (or the brass would clean up), but we like to joke about pay-by-the-note, since the strings would get the lion's share.

Public pronouncements notwithstanding, classical music pays its way at our level. We bring in, through ticket sales (~$25 million), pretty much the cost of payroll, stagehands, physical plant, and guest artists, as well as music director. The rest of our inflated budget (~$60 mil) is various programs intended to soak up excess fundraising, including the cost of fundraising, and provide a pillow for management. So we tend to be unsympathetic to pleas of fundraising difficulty.

London Symphony went player-managed a while ago.

The hall is a "union shop", so yes, mostly. Not totally sure.

Always my goal, except when trading quips.

BTW, it just occurred to me that a useful metaphor regarding unions is military forces, in that when one has a large enough force, it doesn't get used because it is not needed. But if it were not available---etc.

It's not hard to imagine that if unions were actively eliminated the worker protections now in place would evaporate.