Union memberships
In his most recent column, Mike Rosen referred to a previous letter from a pro-union type who “seethed with resentment at ‘rich corporations’". (Rocky Mountain News, Friday, July 6, 2007, page 39) But neither Rosen, the previous letter writer, or anyone else has pointed out the obvious as to why union membership has plummeted from 20% in 1983 to 7% today: Unions are perceived as being “rich corporations” themselves — and corrupt “rich corporations” at that.
Gone are the days where workers at a company united in a single voluntary unit to address issues of pay, benefits and working conditions. Today a single union may represent tens of thousands of dues-paying workers at many various companies throughout the nation. And just where does all that money go?
And just as the perception exists that the only people who really get rich in class-action lawsuits filed in federal court are the lawyers, the perception exists that the only people who really get rich from the payment of union dues are those who work for the unions.
Unions today are perceived to be the very thing they claim to oppose: Top heavy and heavy handed rich corporate monstrosities that exists for the sole purpose to simply to feed itself and its rich corporate top brass at the expense of its dues paying members.
The perception is that while unions “claim” to work for better pay and benefits for its blue-collar working members, the blue-collar working class is struggling to pay bills while the president and other higher-ups of the union uses those dues to enjoy life and live the lifestyle of the Rich and Famous.
Most people are smart — and logical. They may work for and get a paycheck from one “rich corporation.” And they don’t necessarily want to join another huge “rich corporation” just because that “rich corporation” is a union — and pay dues if all those dues do is get them token raises/benefits in their low-paying jobs while the leader of the union uses those dues to live a — hypocritical? — lifestyle of the Rich and Famous most union due-paying members will never see.
This letter has not been edited.
I have a little bit different perspective on the union. I grew up back east in a strong union family. I got to see the vast differences in both income, support, and job security between non-union and union. When my father recently passed away, it was the union who responded first with support, and he had retired 15-years before.
I really believe the reason the unions are going by the wayside has nothing to do with dues or even the fact that they've outlived their usefulness.
I believe that what is happening with the union is what is happening with the country overall. The union is not some "benefit" someone just gives you. It is an organization that you are a part of and that you must participate in. And in this country today, most Americans can't even commit to voting or take the time to study the issues let alone take the time to commit to a Union.
Back home, spending an evening or two a month at your Union Hall having a direct hand in deciding your job future was very common. Now, people don't seem to care or the desire to take the time.
Unions are not perfect, but they are the closest thing you'll get to democracy and true empowerment in the workplace. Remember too, it is your work place.
Good for you Larkspur. I'm always saying that people have forgotten the history of labor in this country. It was unions that gave us weekends off, better working conditions and a host of other benefits now enjoyed by all workers.
Lets not forget the concerted efforts of Corporate America and the Republican allies in attacking union membership. Maybe if membership were back to the levels of your father's day we wouldn't be seeing so much corporate malfeasance and destruction of pensions
Posted by M on July 12, 2007 03:39 PMWhat have the unions done lately?
Posted by Roy on July 12, 2007 03:42 PM"Remember too, it is your work place"
What does that mean?
Is it where you work? Yes.
Do you (as an employee) own it? Probably not.
Are you entitled to your job? No.
Unions are good for some of the union members; not all.
Unions are not good for employers and consumers.
Valid question Roy. You don't hear what Unions are doing...out here. Back east, they still often make front news. Prime example was the union stepping in to fight a wage cut of over 50% in some companies. They are still active.
Maybe the question shouldn't be what have they done lately, but what have any of us done. Jobs going over seas, people losing benefits while executives (not all or even a majority) are collecting obscene bonuses. What are we doing about it? Most are content to sit and whine, or beg for government support. Back in my grandfather's day, they took to the street and fought (sometimes literally).
I think this country needs a strong Union presense. They need to improve. They need to realize that it cannot always be about higher bennies or wage, but job justice.
Problem is, I just don't think the average US citizen has the cajones anymore to fight. Easier to send kids off overseas to defend our freedom rather than fighting the real fight here.
Lately?
Unions have destroyed the public education system, rendered previously viable US industries obselete, driven countless jobs out of the country, and on and on....
Worst of all, of course, is the union role in the downfall of our public schools. More money has been invested into schools again and again with no return. Without accountabilty, mandated membership, and unsurpassed infiltration into the school boards (again destroying accountability) its a wonder the schools aren't in worse shape -- perhaps thanks to those teachers who actually care more about their students than they do their own garaunteed paid rasies.
Posted by on July 12, 2007 03:58 PMMike is right. None of us are "entitled" to a job, especially in Colorado which is an At Will state. But I think you and one other have hit it on the head as to a big concern regarding Unions: you are worried about it costing you money. It's a valid concern. Here's another comparison for you though. At least a few years ago, to be a Union Journeyman required more time and training than was required by law for a non-union employee. There is the argument, though it is not true in all cases, that you get potentially get better quality, with the cheaper product possibly costing you more in the long run. Again that's not true in all cases.
As far as the schools go, I've had a completely different experience with the teachers in my county. They on the most part are professional, caring, and gave my children an education far better than I received years ago. The impression I have is that they are teachers first and Union second, but they are Union. They have to be because if they left it up to the average taxpayer who is more interested in saving a dime of taxes rather than spend it on something frivolous like education, we would all be in trouble.
M brought up a good point too: Pensions. My father and maternal grandfather both worked for GM and had an excellent pension. Both Union. My paternal Grandfather worked down the street in a non-Union shop. His pension disappeared. Thank God for social security.
Unions like corporations are not perfect, but at least in a Union, you have a voice to direct it. But you have to be involved. Same with our country. You want true freedom, get involved.
"My father and maternal grandfather both worked for GM and had an excellent pension."
The very same pensions that have made it very difficult for GM to compete with other manufacturers who don't have pension programs quite that generous.
"His pension disappeared. Thank God for social security."
How about saving money on your own?
Mike,
You mean that same pension he paid into for 32 years? At the same place he used to work 24-7 to make GM a success? He worked for his pension, fought for his pension, and he deserved that pension. A pension that wasn't that different than most places. After working many years and very closely with GM, their woes are not from the workers. This is first hand knowledge.
Not easy to save on a hour wage of less than $6 an hour. My Grandfather and Grandmother both worked in the fields during the depression and in the steel mill. Both worked the factories during the war. Though much of what they had went into medical expenses, they still did OK. Not well but OK.
There is one "urban legend" people need to get over. Yes the GM workers did OK, and yes it was due to the Union. But don't think for a moment they made out like kings. That's pure fantasy. Dad's pension was not as big as you might think, and it pales in comparison what is available today. He saved very well by working 24/7. Too bad the last few years of his life he wasn't in the best of health, not to mention that his hearing was pretty much gone. See until the Union stepped in and got some safety laws in place, you didn't wear those crazy masks or where ear protection. He was 80% deaf and had more than his share of health issues. It was quite a battle just to get all that, but then in those days, protection just wasn't readily available.
Not everyone's lot in life allows "saving your own money". Besides, as some have pointed out, how much extra can these people be getting if they're paying out so much in Union dues?
Mike,
You mean that same pension he paid into for 32 years? At the same place he used to work 24-7 to make GM a success? He worked for his pension, fought for his pension, and he deserved that pension. A pension that wasn't that different than most places. After working many years and very closely with GM, their woes are not from the workers. This is first hand knowledge.
OK guys, this has been fun, but it's time to go buy beer.
Not easy to save on a hour wage of less than $6 an hour. My Grandfather and Grandmother both worked in the fields during the depression and in the steel mill. Both worked the factories during the war. Though much of what they had went into medical expenses, they still did OK. Not well but OK.
There is one "urban legend" people need to get over. Yes the GM workers did OK, and yes it was due to the Union. But don't think for a moment they made out like kings. That's pure fantasy. Dad's pension was not as big as you might think, and it pales in comparison what is available today. He saved very well by working 24/7. Too bad the last few years of his life he wasn't in the best of health, not to mention that his hearing was pretty much gone. See until the Union stepped in and got some safety laws in place, you didn't wear those crazy masks or where ear protection. He was 80% deaf and had more than his share of health issues. It was quite a battle just to get all that, but then in those days, protection just wasn't readily available.
Not everyone's lot in life allows "saving your own money". Besides, as some have pointed out, how much extra can these people be getting if they're paying out so much in Union dues?
Mike:
Do you really hate hard working people as much as your cynical digs imply?
Posted by Charles B on July 12, 2007 05:47 PMCharles,
You might infer that I hate hard working people; I didn't imply it.
I don't hate hard working people; I am a hard working person.
Are you really as stupid as your stupid posts imply?
Good Lord, Mike, I can't believe you are really that dumb:
You say: "How about saving money on your own?
Posted by Mike on July 12, 2007 04:39 PM"
What the hell do you think the pension plan was for? It was set up as a way for the workers to save money; one of the things they worked for was the pension plan.
I'll bet you thought that GM established the pension plan out of the goodness of its heart.
Posted by Truth on July 12, 2007 07:32 PMMike,
GM is having trouble competing because it makes an inferior product, not because it is paying benefits to its workers. As a free-market conservative, you should know this. And if GM wants to ever compete again, it should wisely invest its money in its workforce, and attract the best and the brightest to improve its product. Blaming pensions for GM's troubles is at best ignorant.
Larkspur, thanks for your contribution to this thread. It's kind of a breath of fresh air to hear a voice like yours about unions in this day and age. There is so much anti-union propaganda out there that oftentimes, the very people who would benefit the most from them are the most afraid to start/join one.
Dan,
GM cut most of its job force due to the extraordinarly high wages, health care costs and excessive pension benefits they pay/paid to their employees. This was all due to long running union strong arm tactics. When compared to other automakers from foreign countries which are assembling their cars in this country, their total employee costs are almost double.
Look it up.
The unions have forced GM to pay employees - even those who have been laid off for many years or those from plants that have long been shut down - their benefits under the current contract and cannot get the union brass to relent. And you think poor product quality is soley to blame?
So to say that they have not "wisely invested in their employees" truly makes you sound as if you are the ignorant one.
larkspur said:
"I got to see the vast differences in both income, support, and job security between non-union and union. When my father recently passed away, it was the union who responded first with support, and he had retired 15-years before."
Well, I don't doubt what you say. I have many union friends back east. Union members do make more than non-union counterparts.
But, because of the costs of hiring union workers, union membership has been consistently falling. Sure, if I were a blue collar worker (and I was one for many years when I was younger), I would love to get into a union.
But, as most union leaders know, the higher the labor cost the less union members there will be.
By the way, great comments by Mike. This response by Charles B. to Mike's comments cracks me up:
"Do you really hate hard working people as much as your cynical digs imply?"
Mike never came anywhere near hating hard-working people.
As to Dan's comment regarding the inferior product, most analysts would agree that has to do with the high cost of labor. Toyota is able to reinvest more of it's capital into manufacturing because it pays it's employees less than GM.
"Good Lord, Mike, I can't believe you are really that dumb:
You say: "How about saving money on your own?
Posted by Mike on July 12, 2007 04:39 PM"
My apologies, Truth. I should have said:
You shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket.
Risking 100% of your retirement on one company is foolish.
"Toyota is able to reinvest more of it's capital into manufacturing because it pays it's employees less than GM."- John II
Exactly; and they aren't still paying those employees 20 years after they last produced something for the company.
Mike,
You're absolutely right. People shouldn't expect promises to actually be kept.. They should've diversified, maybe into telecom stocks or something... maybe Enron....
And you and John II are so correct. Our problem is we pay blue-collar workers way too much. Instead of raising wages worldwide, we need to cut wages, get rid of pension plans and raise co-pays so we can compete. If people don't have the wherewithal to know how to invest all that extra money they have after their wages are cut they should suffer the consequences. That just means good deals on property for us when foreclosure hits those losers. Who cares that they went bankrupt because of catastrophic illness?
There should be no communal safety net. Each person should have their own individual safety net. That's the most efficient way to do it. Divided we shall overcome. Workers Divide! Separate we shall prosper!
Mike is a hard working man. He's walked in everyone's shoes and knows where they went wrong. Why should he have anything but disdain for people who were clearly authors of their own demise?
Feel the empathy...
Posted by Charles B on July 12, 2007 11:46 PM""His pension disappeared. Thank God for social security."
How about saving money on your own?"
Social Security is "saving money on your own" when you are paying a grand a month into the program. I, like many, lost a military pension into the Clinton "peace dividend" - so my retirement program was stolen by the government. Yep, I pay the max allowed into "401K" programs at each employer since the forced exit from the military career, but it hardly makes up for what was lost and "401K" wasn't allowed when I was in the military. I will have paid into social security for over fifty years before being eligible to receive my money back. Now that the Democrats both killed social security reform and retaken Congress, I expect they will be jumping all over helping the working people that have no private pension, lost their public pension, and fund the current social security system. You will pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for a group led by wealthy lawyers to remember that at one time they claimed to support working people!
Posted by RS on July 13, 2007 01:41 AMLarkspur, thank you for providing some excellent, clearly presented arguements in favor of unions.
Like you, I grew up in a union household where it was made clear that the reason we could go to the doctor, see a dentist, get glasses, have a nice place to live, etc. was because Dad belonged to a strong union that insured a decent wage and benefits.
Posted by Thom Challenger on July 13, 2007 02:20 AMI have never been a union member, but I do understand the history behind them & their place today. It is interesting that today, when union memberships are falling, CEOs are making astronomical sums - 200x what the average worker makes, even when (as in the case of Home Depot) their management is causing the company to LOSE money.
As far as other countries getting to pay their employees less (and several post have mentioned health care), kindly remember that those countries often have some form of nationalized health care, so their employees are covered. As far as the comment "hey aren't still paying those employees 20 years after they last produced something for the company" I would like to point out that those pension plans were regularly underfunded (much like the Feds use Social Security as a piggy bank) and when. like United they dumped the pension plan on the taxpayers into the the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. those pensions were reduced by between 50-75% (while upper management got lump sum retirement payments in the millions & lifetime healthcare that allowed their retirements to be as comfortable as possible). Often, as in the case of United, unions negotiated what they thought were strong retirement benfits in lieu of immediate pay, thinking that they were doing what was best for both the companies and themselves. Anybody want to bet that if, before being allowed to default on pensions, upper management had to refund any lump sum retirement benefits - or were included in the pool of folks getting federally determined retirement benefits that management would come up with a way to fully fund pension plans?
There have been abuses by union leaders - however (and to quote Reggie McDaniel, "there's always a however"), where do you suggest the workers were supposed to go to get some form of workplace justice? Do you honestly believe advances in workplace safety, laws about child labor, laws about how many hours per day/week you have to work (which companies these days ignore given the governmental support for business over labor), even minimum wage laws would have come about because of the 'compassion' of corporate management? We workers (both blue collar & white collar) have all benefited in some way because of unions. It's too bad you folks who hate the concept of unions don't know anything about history.
Posted by Mary on July 13, 2007 05:03 AMSince we like lables, I am a pro-union conservative. One cannot dispute that unions were instrumental in the creation of a middle class in America. I have read the history and spoken to several people who have perspective of life before unions. There have been obvious problems with unions. I lament that unions are headed in the wrong direction. Republicans ignore them and Democrates pay them lip service. Several unions have become pro-illegal which makes them antithetical: scab labor becomes the union. Some unions have become so engangled with the employers, they are a union in name only. As unions continue to decline, I predict, employer abuses will rise. The hedge against becoming a nation of rich and poor is unions.
Posted by Tom on July 13, 2007 06:47 AM"People shouldn't expect promises to actually be kept.. They should've diversified, maybe into telecom stocks or something... maybe Enron...."
Promises? What if the company fails, Charles? There is no promise to be kept, the company doesn't exist anymore.
Enron? Again, all their eggs in one basket.
"And you and John II are so correct. Our problem is we pay blue-collar workers way too much."
What a silly, transparent debating tactic you use, Charles. Make something up that was never said, and attack it.
Posted by Mike on July 13, 2007 07:03 AM"The unions have forced GM to pay employees - even those who have been laid off for many years or those from plants that have long been shut down - their benefits under the current contract and cannot get the union brass to relent."
What the devil is wrong with those unions? Imagine their gall, trying to get higher wages for their employees. My Lord, you would think they were capitalists.
And it was the unions that forced GM and Ford to make the wrong kind of automobiles while Toyota and Honda made the right kind, correct?
GM and Ford didn't start making poor quality cars only after Toyota came to town. They were doing that when they had a virtual monopoly, only nobody knew about it because of that virtual monopoly. The reason they did it? That virtual monopoly. After all, it's cheaper to make bad cars and it improves the bottom line.
GM and Ford made bad business decisions because they were looking only at today while Toyota and Honda were looking at tomorrow. Now, GM and Ford want their former employees to pay for those bad decisions, while management increases its own compensation.
I find it interesting that the anti-Union conservatives keep saying that they hate illegal immigrants because illegals work too cheap and drag wages down for everyone else but unions are too expensive because they force corporations to pay the workforce money that could have been spent on extravagant CEO compensation. So what is it folks. Are good wages good for America or are cheap wages what conservatives want? If conservatives want cheap wages to make American corporations the cash cows that their CEO's demand then you would think that conservatives would whole heartedly embrace an open border policy which allows the cheapest of cheap labor into our country.
As far as GM's woes it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that GM invested in back seat DVD players and Toyota invested in fuel efficient cars. Guess which product the American public is now buying? It is called corporate strategic vision and that is far more important than taking pension plans away from workers.
Posted by Wes on July 13, 2007 07:49 AM" And you and John II are so correct. Our problem is we pay blue-collar workers way too much. Instead of raising wages worldwide, we need to cut wages, get rid of pension plans and raise co-pays so we can compete."
Wow, Charles B. A bit over-emotional, don't you think?
Now, you want to eliminate labor competition? And who should set the price of labor? Government?
Mike and I are not the one's saying some blue collar workers make too much money, the laws of economics are saying so.
Factory workers in Tennessee have good jobs because the factory workers in Detroit were asking for too much. Would you like to tell those Tennessee blue-collar workers that they need to quit their jobs so the Detroit workers can have them?
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 07:58 AMJohn II said:
"Toyota is able to reinvest more of it's capital into manufacturing because it pays it's employees less than GM."- John II
And Mike agreed:
"Exactly; and they aren't still paying those employees 20 years after they last produced something for the company."
Then he claimed my statement that he supported lower wages for blue-collar workers in order to compete was incorrect.
Mike, why do you hate working people?
Posted by Charles B on July 13, 2007 08:13 AMTruth,
"What the devil is wrong with those unions? Imagine their gall, trying to get higher wages for their employees. My Lord, you would think they were capitalists."
Everyone wants a higher wage. Are you saying there is no consequence to demanding a higher pay?
You said your rate is $250 per hour; why is not $500 per hour? I think you're fully aware that you'd have a tougher time finding clients at that higher rate.
The same goes for unions. Except unions monopolize the labor force. They don't just demand raises for some of the labor force, they demand raises for the entire labor force. So, what happens? Employers hire less union workers. Sure, if you're lucky enough to remain in the union you'll be happy. But, what about the workers who don't get hired? Because it's a union shop, they can't even work for a lower wage.
By the way, union bosses are aware of this. When they negotiate with employers, they make offers such as "500 workers at $25 an hour. No? Ok, how about 300 workers at $35 an hour"
So, which do you prefer: a smaller group of workers at a high rate or a larger group of workers at a lower rate?
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 08:13 AMJohn II said:
"Toyota is able to reinvest more of it's capital into manufacturing because it pays it's employees less than GM."- John II
And Mike agreed:
"Exactly; and they aren't still paying those employees 20 years after they last produced something for the company."
Then he claimed my statement that he supported lower wages for blue-collar workers so that American automakers could compete was incorrect.
Mike, why do you hate working people?
Posted by Charles B on July 13, 2007 08:19 AMSome posts talk about the danger of putting all of one's money into the same company. But pension funds, like mutual funds, typically have a diversified portfolio.
Pension funds don't just invest in the underlying company. They are managed by supposedly competent investment managers who invest somewhat like mutual funds do, in a variety of companies.
The problem is not the risk of investing in one company because that simply doesn't happen. The problem is that GM invested not just cash but promises in its pension fund and then failed to keep those promises.
"One of the first pensions to start working with hedge funds is also the nation's biggest corporate pension fund, the $90 billion General Motors fund."
One thing GM did was to base its pension fund on unrealistic projections. It assumed, quite irresponsibly, that its fund would earn 9%.
"What GM did, as you rightly point out, is create profits, by borrowing at less than 9%, then assuming the pension fund will get a 9% return. A money machine, creating money out of thin air aka accounting conventions."
The health of the pension fund should not depend on the health of the underlying company. And would not if the law, as it should, required pension funds to be fully funded, not with promises from the company, but with cash.
The problem with GM is not that the company is doing poorly but that it broke its promise to its employees to fund its pension fund. As it did with its cars, GM looked only at today and not tomorrow. "We'll fund our pension fund later with money we think we'll have later".
So those who talk about the problem being that the employees invested unwisely by putting all their eggs in one basket is bogus.
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 08:19 AMAgain, Charles B., it's not about hating working people. All we're doing is explaining economics to someone who is more interesting in emoting than listening.
Blue-collar workers have to deal with the laws of economics just like every other worker.
Having said that, I will try your "why do you hate the working man" routine next time I'm looking for a job. Perhaps, I can use that tactic to ask my boss for a raise. Beers are on me if it works, Charles B.
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 08:20 AMWe need to remember that those labor contracts providing for generous pension benefits were mostly made prior to Toyota coming to town. GM was thinking about all the money it would be making due to the virtual monopoly American car manufacturers had. I'm sure that if it had realized what would be happening in the future, it would have dealt with the unions differently. But it was GM and not the unions which made the imprudent business decision. And the way it dealt with that bad decision it made was to made the employees the fall guy by not funding its pension plans. The remedy is clear: require pension plans to be fully funded and don't count on promises. The mistake the union made and that its employees are now paying for is that it didn't require that. It, too, spent too much time on today to the detriment of tomorrow.
The union's job is to look after the employees. The company's job is to look after the company. Too many people think that the union should also be doing the company's job. Of course no one forced GM to sign the labor contract. Most of the GM management was over the age of twenty-one. They chose to sign because they wanted money in their pockets now and didn't worry enough about tomorrow.
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 08:37 AM"Mike, why do you hate working people?"- Charles B
I don't, Charles. I am a person, and I work; therefore, I am a working person.
Or, do you have to make below a certain income level to be considered a "working person"? What a stupid term.
According to Charles; if someone thinks that the agreements between automakers and unions have had a detrimental effect on the automakers, and their ability to compete with other automakers, then you "hate working people".
If you disagree with the level that the United States funds social programs; that you think it is bad for incentive and society as a whole, then you "hate the country".
Grow up, Charles.
Posted by Mike on July 13, 2007 09:19 AMUnions are productivity killers. They worship at the altar of seniority and work rules that destroy efficiency, block cost cutting and inhibit the ability to be price competitive. This is the worst possible strategy in a world of rapid globalization, increasing price competition and abundant inexpensive labor.
Just look at the failed Big-3 model and the UAW. U Ain't Workin' is a lousy legacy. And its not over. In 20 years the only remaining unions will be associated with the government. Globalization is going to put the rest of them out of business, and it can't happen fast enough for America.
Posted by hank on July 13, 2007 09:44 AM
I think Truth pretty much hits it on the head regarding the pensions. Figure for my family, this was all put in place back in the 60s and 70s, where both employees and the auto world saw a very different future--if they were looking ahead that far at all.
As far as Hank's comments are concerned, there is some truth to what he is saying regarding productivity. The contract would say you put out only so much work and that was it, but then that was strictly production. Many of the union workers were actually skilled trades, keeping the equipment going, and were putting in some God awful hours. Like I mentioned before, some of these guys worked 24/7 to keep their antique lines going. Much of the profits GM made went into investor pockets rather than improvements. It wasn't until the mid-80s that they got smart and started improvements--the OT went through the roof.
Don't get me wrong. People like my dad, grandfather, etc. felt the union really shot themselves in the foot. The emphasis was pay and bennies rather than safety and job security. Huge mistake. I think most Union members back there would agree with that. It is funny though. Many people associate Union membership as being kind of a liberal thing. The majority of the Union people I knew back there were Democrats but very conservative, and fiercely loyal to their local. It's almost like a whole other culture that is very alien to the Colorado region.
As for the failed Big-3 model, it depends which model you mean. The model where the Unions were strongest (60s and 70s) is light years from today's model. Back then the cars were all GM. Today, they are basically made up of contracted parts that feed the Big-3 and all other auto manufacturers. You have no idea what you are getting. I worked in the airbag industry and we supplied to nearly everyone. Very different world that maybe as some point out doesn't match the old model--Union or Corporate.
There are some wonderful models of the benefits of not having any unions, for example, Bangledesh. There are also some great models of unions with no real power: for example, China. Just think about the great benefits we Americans get from their use of slave labor, that is, except for those Americans who lose their jobs.
It is certainly true that there is a downside to unions. The astronomical compensation corporate management gets these days would pale in comparison to what it would be without unions.
Hank is right that unions resist measures which replace people with machines. Just as corporations often replace business practice with fraud. We've seen quite a few examples of that lately. Does that mean we should do away with unions and corporations?
It's hard to imagine an employee being jubilant because he has just been replaced by machine. No real surprise that employees resist losing their jobs.
And many of us would rather talk to a human than a machine.
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 11:05 AMQuick off topic observation: John II and Mike are the same posters, I'd bank on it.
John II always resorts to calling people's posts silly, dumb, stupid, etc. when he doesn't have any logical supporting points for his position. He and Mike sound exactly alike, plus John II has admitted he makes up multiple identities on other forums. Why would he operate any differently here...
Posted by mytwosense on July 13, 2007 11:17 AMWith what Truth says, maybe that's the answer for Unions. Instead of worrying about unsustainable benefits that will only sap the strength of the job market down the road, maybe the Union needs to be the driving force to fight the steady loss of jobs. Instead of focusing on local membership, focus on a national that speaks for all the working force.
But then for all I know, they do that now and I just don't see it. I'm used to the locals who appear to address just their particular fields (auto for example).
I feel something is missing for the worker's voice, and that the Union (a modified model) is what we need. Just a thought being tossed out there.
I've looked at other comments on subjects, and it is a bit sad to see people resort to insults and blind statements. This one dealing with the Union has been incredible. People like Truth, Hank and the others have shared definite food for thought. That's they way we should use these sites. Good discussion vs. personal attacks.
It's been educational. Thank you.
"Mike" said:
What a silly, transparent debating tactic you use, Charles. Make something up that was never said, and attack it.
A coincidence that "Mike" accuses Charles of something that John II has been told he does on this site? Don't think so.
John II, if nothing else, you are one fascinating specimen. I am sure a shrink could have a field day with your complete lack of ethics.
"Quick off topic observation: John II and Mike are the same posters, I'd bank on it."
Please don't bank your retirement on it. John and I are not the same person; though we share many of the same beliefs.
If you have paid attention to our posts in the past (or gone to his link which has referenced God in the past), you will see that John is a religious man, while I am not. I am not a religious conservative. I don't believe in God.
"Mike" said:
What a silly, transparent debating tactic you use, Charles. Make something up that was never said, and attack it.
A coincidence that "Mike" accuses Charles of something that John II has been told he does on this site? Don't think so."
That was in response to this comment from Charles, something that I never said:
"And you and John II are so correct. Our problem is we pay blue-collar workers way too much."
Again, we are not the same person.
"John II always resorts to calling people's posts silly, dumb, stupid, etc. when he doesn't have any logical supporting points for his position."
The logic might escape you; it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Truth and especially Charles B resort to insults on a regular basis. What do you think Charles' question, "Why do you hate working people?" was, if not an insult?
Posted by Mike on July 13, 2007 11:35 AMmytwosense,
What's with the attacks?
"John II always resorts to calling people's posts silly, dumb, stupid, etc. when he doesn't have any logical supporting points for his position."
When have I ever not had any logical supporting points for my positions?
As for Mike and myself, it doesn't really matter if you think we're the same person; you should still address our (or my) arguments.
I haven't seen you do that. You just wasted two posts commenting not on my arguments but on your opinions about me.
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 11:36 AM"John II, if nothing else, you are one fascinating specimen. I am sure a shrink could have a field day with your complete lack of ethics."
By the way, mytwosense, I'm married to a shrink.
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 11:41 AMIs mytwosense getting paranoid about something? Does he think there's an evil conspiracy afoot being plotted by a multiple personality poster bent on converting this to a rightwing blog while nobodys looking?
I guess that means Charles B and mts are the same posters, doesn't it?
Posted by KW on July 13, 2007 11:51 AMKW, I'm a "she," not a "he."
Although come to think of it, I don't know if you're a guy or gal, either.
Posted by mytwosense on July 13, 2007 11:56 AMKW,
How do we know that mytwosense is also an alter-ego of mine and that I'm actually playing for both teams?
Watch this, I'll post as mytwosense now and say something dumb.
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 11:56 AMNo, it means that KW and Brian Stuckey are both trolls.
Posted by on July 13, 2007 12:06 PMKind of a late response to John II comments in one of my comments:
I'm curious, where back east (I was Michigan).
Also I sympathize with the blue color part. My first years here (Colorado) were as a welder in a foundry (Littleton). Dirtiest, nastiest place ever, but for a kid trying to get away from the terrible layoffs back east, it took care of me. Hard work though. Can't tell you how many times I set had red hot weld spatter go down the boot, and there ain't a thing you can do about it. That's when I finished off college and broke the family chain tied to foundries.
Posted by larkspur on July 13, 2007 12:11 PMWow, talk about getting side-tracked. Mr. Forman was writing about the corporate structure of Unions now a days, not the reason for their demise and downfall. Let's take a look at some information, and see just how correct Mr. Foreman may or may not be...
According to the NEA, the National Average for US teachers is $47,674. The head of the Teachers Union is paid $570,817 more than 10 times the average teacher.
Some numbers from 1998 for the top "executives" of the AFL-CIO
Gerald McEntee - $352,404 - AFSCME
Arthur Coia - $335,674 - LIUNA
Randolph Babbitt - $314,995 - ALPA
John Wilhelm $2800,793 - HERE
Douglas Dority - $264,152 - UFCW
John Sweeney - $199,750 -AFL-CIO
Stephen Yokich - $112,608 - UAW
source: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45b/105.html
In comparison, wages for UAW workers in 1998: $22.46/hr or about $46,717 per year with no overtime (average wage according to UAW website).
Without getting into any of the merits or arguments about if Unions are good or bad, Mr. Forman does indeed have a point, that the perception of the union and it's leaders may indeed have an effect on union membership, as those leaders tend to make much more than those they represent.
All you folks need to get jobs and actually do something productive....
Posted by blahblahblah on July 13, 2007 01:28 PMHey, we must all be UNION employees.
Just kidding
Posted by Dan2 on July 13, 2007 01:39 PMForman does indeed have a point, that the perception of the union and it's leaders may indeed have an effect on union membership, as those leaders tend to make much more than those they represent
.
Posted by Dan2 on July 13, 2007 01:09 PM
But the "praise the rich" conservatives have no problem saying that CEO's deserve their salaries because of what they do for the corporation so why doesn't that argument also apply to union presidents?
It is interesting that the "praise rich people" conservatives never talk about the cost of supporting the elite managers of these companies. Isn't it true that the pension plans for these corporations are tilted towards golden parachutes for the CEO's something to the tune of 60% of the entire pension plan. Dan2 points out the salaries of the union presidents but it would be interesting to compare them to the salaries of the CEO's in those industries. Wasn't it one of the crooks who took Tyco to the cleaners who charged the company for a $7,000 shower curtain. I wonder who pays for that expensive shower curtain. Could it be (gasp) the consumer. Why don't the mouthpieces for the rich comment on the expense of top heavy management that looks at short term profits to support their extravagant lifestyles. Nacchio is the classic example of an overpaid predatory CEO who just about destroyed QWest to keep his short term stock shares as high as possible.
It could be that the negative campaign against unions is actually funded by the rich to make sure that the peasant workers will forgo their pension plans so the super wealthy can afford to send their mega-yachts to the Mediterranean to avoid the hurricane season in Florida. Conservatives are basically royalists who worship the rich and if the rich want the pension plans of the working man than the lackeys who love CEO royalty can't wait to throw rocks at unions and demand that we drive wages to the bottom to support the God like wealthy.
Posted by Wes on July 13, 2007 01:43 PMDear Blahblahblah
Actually believe it or not, I am working. I am an underpaid union worker assigned to monitor websites such as this for offensive and inappropriate use for large corporations with my office in India.
Why do you ask?
I did note though that suddenly thread went silent for about an hour. The commenters must be Denverites who went to lunch.
Posted by larkspur on July 13, 2007 01:43 PMDan2,
Most leaders in any segment make much more than the people they represent. It comes with the territory of being a leader.
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 01:49 PMI really like Dan2's post (especially the second). Good evil smartass comeback. That's a good thing.
Perhaps the Union has become too established, with pros running it. The original concept was something developed by the workers and run by the workers. I wouldn't necessarily care for paying dues to such leaders. Maybe it is all too big and needs to be pared back down to the worker's level. The idea of the union (to me) is to give a collective voice to the workers. That may get lost in such a corporate model.
I do feel there is a place for Unions in this country. But it has to be truly run by the workers and for the workers, with pay and bennies NOT a priority. After all, the original purpose, as taught by my grandfather, was security, justice, and safety. That was and should still be the Union legacy and goal.
Dan 2: "According to the NEA, the National Average for US teachers is $47,674. The head of the Teachers Union is paid $570,817 more than 10 times the average teacher.
Some numbers from 1998 for the top "executives" of the AFL-CIO
Gerald McEntee - $352,404 - AFSCME
Arthur Coia - $335,674 - LIUNA
Randolph Babbitt - $314,995 - ALPA
John Wilhelm $2800,793 - HERE
Douglas Dority - $264,152 - UFCW
John Sweeney - $199,750 -AFL-CIO
Stephen Yokich - $112,608 - UAW"
I sure would have guessed that the union executives made a lot more than that.
Dan2: "According to the NEA, the National Average for US teachers is $47,674. The head of the Teachers Union is paid $570,817 more than 10 times the average teacher."
Let's take a look at a comparison of how much top executives make compared to workers:
"In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks."
"The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives, especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the increased divergence between CEO pay and an average worker’s pay over time, as shown in Figure A. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861)."
"In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year."
"The ratio wasn't always so extreme. As recently as 1978, CEOs were paid only 78 times as much as minimum wage earners."
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621
Taking the teachers union as an example, the boss gets 10 times as much as the average teacher. The average CEO gets 262 times as much as the average worker.
Methinks those union executives need to form a union of their own and get their wages up.
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 02:14 PM
Here is a good article on how CEO's manipulate pension plans. They make out like bandits on these company pension plans. Use the Google term "CEO pension plans" and you can find a ton of articles on the inequities of pension plans and the CEO elites.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/11/pf/retirement/ceo_pension/index.htm
Truth charges $250 an hour for God knows what but has no problem collecting government welfare checks for his retirement. Yet, he has the audacity to question how much money others make.
$250 per hour comes out to $500,000 a year. Truth, how do you justify making so much more money than teachers?
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 02:26 PMI do feel there is a place for Unions in this country. But it has to be truly run by the workers and for the workers, with pay and bennies NOT a priority. After all, the original purpose, as taught by my grandfather, was security, justice, and safety. That was and should still be the Union legacy and goal.
Posted by larkspur on July 13, 2007 02:03 PM
Enjoyed your post larkspur.
My perspective is that unions wouldn't exist if management was consistently fair with their employees. Unfortunately Mike Rosen sniffs at the idea that employers have exploited employees in the past and are likely to do so again in the future.
The "praise the rich" conservatives chide unions for having expensive presidents but how much would it cost the union if they went up against corporation lawyers with some local rep. off the production floor. Unions have had to evolve to counter the incredible wealth that corporations pay for their legal help. Obviously the area in labor negotiations that needs to be closely watched are health care benefits. No doubt the "praise the rich" conservatives will have no problems promoting the removal of health care benefits because "it makes American products and services too expensive". If I belonged to a union I would want a sharp person running the union to fight for my benefits in a room full of legal sharks. Unions have a need to hire talent to deal with the soulless corporate hit men who want take away everything except the barest minimum for the working man. Maybe union presidents make more than the average worker but they are hired by the union to do something the individual union members can't do, negotiate complex labor agreements with cutthroat corporate lawyers. As the saying goes "He might be an overpaid lawyer but he is my overpaid lawyer".
Posted by Wes on July 13, 2007 04:39 PM"$250 per hour comes out to $500,000 a year. Truth, how do you justify making so much more money than teachers?
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 02:26 PM"
I owe it all to my good looks and personality.
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 05:46 PMTruth, now I'm 100% convinced that you are delusional. Although, I think it's telling that you don't owe it to intelligence.
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 06:19 PMI didn't include intelligence, John II, because I figured that would be obvious. Plus I have do some humility. Anyhow, I was kind of hoping you would bring up the fact of extremely high intelligence. I mean, what are friends for?
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 07:23 PMI've worked over the years in union situations and non union jobs. I would have no problem with the unions if they actually restricted themselves mostly to security, justice and safety. Unfortunately, today, many unions focus too much on salary and benefits and sometimes, as in the case of the teacher's union, on political issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with education.
As to the 'evil' corporations, their actions often have as much to do with the leadership at the top (or lack therof), the lax oversight by the boards of directors and loss of vision on why they are in business. When you see lazy, incompetent CEO's whose "leadership' has failed to grow the company, its' products and its' profits receiving huge salaries, stock options and golden parachutes at retirement, there is good reason for all people to be disgusted. CEO pay should reflect competence and achievement, not automatic wealth beyond all measure of worth.
There is no way that any CEO is worth 250X that of an ordinary worker. But that seems the norm anymore.
Wes - I suggest to bolster your "image" and to not be thought of as an azzhat, lose the "praise the rich" conservative line. I don't praise the rich but I do hope to be rich someday. I'm not even close yet, but your disdain for rich folks makes you look like a whiny, sniveling, envious fool. Those that attack the rich as evil, mean and greedy show themselves as life's losers. Get over it.
Posted by RU Serious on July 14, 2007 06:39 PM"There is no way that any CEO is worth 250X that of an ordinary worker."
So, a CEO who through his hard work, innovation, risks, etc...doubles a company's sales while trimming costs, ends up increasing profits and the stock value; making millions of dollars for stockholders, isn't worth 250 times the $40,000.00 salary of one of the employees?
The CEO of a company that makes profits in the billions, isn't worth compensation of 10 million? He is worth that and much more.
Posted by Mike on July 15, 2007 07:48 AMApparently, Mike is unaware of the many cases in which the CEO manages in such a way that the company stock and profits go down, but the CEO's income goes way up.
Posted by Truth on July 15, 2007 09:41 PMTruth,
What did your statement have to do with RU's or mine?
So, because some companies overpay their CEO's, the good ones must be underpaid?
Posted by Mike on July 16, 2007 07:12 AM