No recent news or headlines here, I’m just bringing forth a question I’ve had for some time, at least since the economy started to go south and workers started being let off.

I am, in general, against labor unions. They can be (usually are) a dangerous mob. My father-in-law was a pilot for Eastern and explained how the unions eventually brought down the company, with the inclusion of attempted sabotage of the mechanical equipment on aircraft. They actually tried to crash planes, in order to get their demands met, and their demands were extremely unreasonable.

Therefore, it isn't without hesitation that I contemplate the economic climate in America, and wonder if the return of the labor union isn't necessarily a bad idea. The difference is, this time, the unions would be comprised not only of skilled tradesmen (tradespersons?) and laborers, but also highly educated upper management and technical positions.

With the drive for our companies to branch out globally, initially the motive was to set up factories in third world nations, capitalize on the cheap labor, and obtain extremely reasonably priced goods. This resulted in some job loss for American workers, but it was generally unskilled laborers who often found other employment. Now, the rung of the ladder has gone up considerably. We have corporations in India and are training employees there to take over positions. This doesn’t result in a shortage for workersat the get-go, because Americans go overseas to train people. Long-term though, what would be the need for American workers to be brought to India when the Indians, themselves, would be capable of training their own people without the added expense?

Next, there’s the European market. We have set up companies which employ a lot of Europeans. This has, on one hand, expanded our market. On the other hand, the European workers aren’t subject to the same job insecurities. There are very strong labor laws in Europe which protect the employed from being laid off overnight. There is severance pay, and several months’ notice. In America, I believe the standard is no notice (got that from AuthorMusician, thanks).If the company doesn’t make its numbers it is easier to fire the American workers, and this has been happening a lot recently.

So, I ask the question, will there be a need for the labor unions to rise again? For those who are against the idea of the labor union, might I ask what the alternatives might be? I am open to ideas, because I don’t like the idea of the union either, I just see it as the next logical step.

I would forward the opinion that the labor union is only necessary when the INDIVIDUAL worker is without a means to get ahead.

Labor unions helped to clean up the workplace, increased wages, made it safer to go to work.

However, after the workplace is safe and people have decent pay, what role does the union play?

Works to get higher wages, works to protect workers from being fired (for any reason), works to insure that company rules are followed (by the company).

All the while, this costs the individual worker his union dues. The individual is not free to succeed on his own, or to bargain with the company for better pay, promotions, etc.

The individual union worker, rather than being a peon of the company, becomes a peon of the Union. The Union decides who gets promoted (often using seniority rather than ability as the main criterion). The Union, while negotiating pay raises, ensures that pay raises are not tied to company (or worker!) performance. This creates a dis-incentive for the individual worker to excel.

I am not saying that Unions do not have a place in America. I am saying that a powerful union is can be just as bad (if not worse) than a powerful company.

I agree that the union concept is similar to paying the mafia for 'protection'. However, if the need for protection is real, what are the options?

In an equal playing field, the worker is compensated fairly for his work, and if he doesn't perform he is replaced by someone who will. The playing field, however, is starting to change. Workers are competing within the same company for jobs in which one set of employees is protected, and another isn't. This is bad news, and I'm very curious about how it will pan out.

I think that in my experience with the union, I have found it mostly to be only about collecting union dues. I work at a non-union auto plant, and the UAW has tried to get in twice over the years, each time over 80% voted to send them packing. The UAW would pass out handbills with outright lies on them, telling us how we need the UAW for "job security," while Ford, GM and Chrysler are all laying people off, and we have never had a layoff in the 20 years the plant has been open. The night of the vote they bused in about 200 members from other plants to rally in front of the plant. That really steamed me, I mean, they do not even work here, why do they care if the union gets in? Simple, $$$. We make as much or more than average than any other plant, we have awesome benefits, so why do we need the union? We keep telling them to get lost, but they keep coming back because they are thinking about those 6000 dues paying members and salivating.
On the whole, at least in my experience, the union is becoming less and less important, and in the case of the big 3 auto companies (when Chrysler used to be one of the Big 3 ) becoming more and more of a pain the you know what. But again, I can only go from my own experience.

Labor Unions cause more problems than they fix. Especially when it is an essential gov't service that strikes.

Our AMR (American Medical Response) unit almost went on strike the other week. That would mean, no ambulances (temps would have had to be brought in), slower response times, etc etc. This would have done nothing but endanger the public....all because the workers were upset.

Take our recent teacher strike. bah! The teachers were upset because they were going to withhold the annual raises. Of course, this was in response to a down economy, less tax revenue, etc etc. but noooooooooo teachers had to have their stupid pay increase regardless of our State's financial status. Consider yourself lucky if you even HAVE a job right now.

Who suffers when teachers strike?: The kids.

The only thing I see unions doing these days: is collecting dues, and striking. If you don't like your job, get a new one. Not getting enough pay? Ask for a raise. If you're denied, get a new job. That's how it works. But you don't make other people suffer, because you don't like your benefit package.

Unions had their time and place. And it should stay in the past....where they belong.

--cheers

ARG!!

I'm an education major, so I have a bit to say about that.

Annual raises are needed, as the price of living and the price of materials increases.

That's right, while we're WASTING money on subsidies to businesses that should be allowed to fall by the wayside, funding football teams to travel all over the state to PLAY, decrying the lack of morality an education lottery would cause, your local teahers are PURCHASING many class materials OUT OF POCKET.

So, toss in a down economy, less tax revenue, etc etc and you have teachers who can barely afford to live, let alone support a classroom properly. Do you think photocopies, materials, etc. just come from nowhere?

Anywho, as for labor unions, they have their good sides and their bad sides. When I worked at food world (ALF-CIO, represent! ) as a part time bag boy, I got health insurance and dental, which I thought was a bit odd, however, many people do make successful carreers in the grocery store, which would be hard without the union (ok.. time for your pay raise... naaa, I'll hire that high schooler for minimum wage.)

A dangerous thing is set when you outlaw strikes. With strikes outlawed, what need is there to consider the needs of the lower worker, as opposed to Senator so-and-so's pet project, or Administrator XXX's "business lunch" at the Steak House? What's left as a bargaining chip? Mass resignation?

Now, that I have moved that digression out of the way, to the question of will labor unions rise again, I say they will as long as they are needed. No one wants to give up part of their paycheck to support an un-needed union, but no one wants a full paycheck that is worthless given the current treatment. Unions will rise again if they're needed.

-Robert

Teachers do receive annual salary increases (along with all other people employed by the state).



Been there, done that.

Not always true. Depends on the state, school district, etc. There is no raise for teachers this year where my wife teaches. She gets her extra for the added year experience (which isn't much), but not the annual raise that was always there in the good times.
And in very hard times, state employees either forego raises or pink slips get handed out.
Unions can be good, bad, or indifferent, depends on the leadership and how closely the membership is watching.
Most of the ones I see seem to be in bed with management!
I see unions as slowly slipping away, until management goes too far, then watch unions come back with a vengeance.

It seems to me that most people here think that labour unions (we call them trades unions in the UK, and they have fewer negative connotations - certainly no links to organised crime) were useful when they first got started in introducing minimum standards of pay, rewards, safety, hours and so on to the workplace, but they have now become redundant.

I would agree, with qaulifications. Largely, they have served their original purpose in the industrialised West, though, despite their faults, they are still handy to have around. If for no other reason that the natural tendency of business is to cut as many legal (and sometimes, Illegal) corners as they can to increase their profitablity, and most often the way they choose to do that is to remove some of the benefits of their workforce (oddly, they very rarely seem to remove the benefits of the senior managers. Wonder why? ). It's handy to have a check on that tendency, as we all know that capitalism, without any limits at all, can tend towards corruption and dangerous practices just as easily as state socialism.

However, I think that trades unionism has a vast, as yet untapped, area of growth - the Third World. Many of the workers there, most particularly in the rapidly growing industrial sector are working ridiculously long hours in sweatshop conditions so that we in the West can have cheap goods (or, more often, so that Western retailers can have fatter margins).

Because of cost-of-living factors, even with base level employment protection and higher incomes, third world jobs would still be somewhat cheaper than those in the first world. The workers would be better off, and would have more disposable income and more time to spend it in their won economies, which in the long term would build more wealthy economies for us to trade with - good for us, too.

However, the pay differential would be less pronounced, so there would be less incentive for still more jobs to be exported from our countries to thiers. This would therefore protect domestic employment from some of its current volatility - good for our economies too.

Lastly, the likely increase in costs of foreign manufacturing would put inflationary pressure on Western economies. But then, just a the moment, the biggest danger for most Western economies is not inflation, which is at historic lows in Europe and America, but economic stagnation and even deflation, in part brought about by the very costs savings achieved by exporting jobs to the third world. An injection of some inflationary pressure might make full-blown deflation less likely - a good thing, when you look at the trouble that deflation is causing in the Japanese economy.

So, I think that trades unionism, far from being a useless anachronism, should be actively encouraged in places like China & Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil, India, and other countries from where our goods (and, increasingly, services) are being provided. The WTO would be the ideal organisation to push this forward.

The US workforce has been moving away from unskilled and semi-skilled labor to professional level, highly skilled workers. No, labor unions as we have known them have limited usefulness in this new workforce.

Ignoring the problem of job loss right now and staying on topic, what I see coming is a rise in professional organizations--nonprofits that promote legislature in favor of the highly skilled workers.

For example, the notion of exempt employee is used regularly in IT to justify 7x24 system coverage without any form of overtime payment. Some outfits allow compensation time, usually one day for a week's worth of overtime--which could amount to well over 80 hours.

Another problem I've seen is the development of unfair promotional practices for the golden boys and girls. So, if you're golfing with the management, you get your promotion. Hate golf? Too bad, kiddo. Again, some outfits publish requirements for advancement. But know what? The documents are vague enough to allow unfairness.

Here's a good place to bring up H-B1 and L-1 visas. Management pushes for these programs and continually lobbys to raise the limits of imported high-tech/IT workers from, mostly, India. Professional highly skilled workers need to bring in counter-lobbyists.

We also need to lobby for creative legislature that would reduce the raiding of corporate tills by upper management, and if the legislation is already in place, then fund legal actions when the laws are broken.

Another legal support that could be done is for wrongful layoff or firing. Education for workers on their rights in these situations goes hand-in-hand.

Speaking of education, professional organizations could become very active in helping members to keep their skills current, marketable, and continually growing. Many corporations slash training budgets when the going gets tough, and this is exactly when workers need to expand and update skills--just in case a layoff comes.

Finally, I think nonprofits that support the new workforce can go about its funding in much more creative ways than in the past. The nature of nonprofits has changed greatly over the years to allow more flexibility in fundraising. So you can do membership dues, yes. But you can also publish trade rags that sell advertising, create training centers, host technology seminars, and even put on music concerts to enhance revenue flows.

I think this will be the shape of things to come. The old ideas around labor unions are most definitely obsolete with these exceptions: Solidarity brings strength. Individual negotiations are stacked in favor of the corporation. During hard times, people need more support than the antiquated unemployment compensation systems.

The time is coming where these ideas will be ripe for the picking. Many folks have been knocked out of complacency, so I guess this long job-loss period will eventually yield fruit.