Do we still need unions?

[aerius]

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that we're talking about a country such as Canada with universal healthcare, decent worker protection laws, and where many employers will provide various benefits such as dental plans, eyecare plans and stuff like that for employees and their families. Also assume that there's a decent social security net.

Given the above, do we still need unions or are they a relic from the last century that do more harm than good? We already have all the goodies that unions have fought for in the past, and many of these things are written into law or have become socially accepted to the point where they're very hard to get rid of. Do we still need to keep the unions around so they can stand up and fight for the workers or can we quietly disband them since they're outdated?

[General Mung Beans]

There undoubtedly are going to be disputes over details especially if a government engages in austerity measures.

[Surlethe]

No. So here's a bit of flamebait. The whole purpose of a union is to cartelize the labor market to raise workers' compensation. The ultimate goal is to increase workers' standards of living. When you accept that it's the government's job to enforce a minimum standard of living and basic human rights, the union automatically becomes superfluous. Even in their heyday, unions were crude instruments at best: you only benefited from the union if you managed to get a job, which was harder because the union kept wages higher. At their worst, unions were capable of affecting the entire economy (c.f. the nationwide steel strike of 1959(?), which actually threw 0.8% of the labor force out of work) or driving whole industries into the ground (GM). But once the government's doing its job and making sure that kids aren't getting their arms torn off in factories and corporations aren't effectively enslaving miners in company towns, unions are labor market monopolies with all the bad effects monopolies entail: holding back productivity gains, keeping people unemployed, keeping prices high and production low. Supporting unions nowadays is a great way of telling unemployed people, "Fuck you, I got mine."

[Stark]

As a tool for worker organisation why would they ever go away? There are several industries where if they were banned or destroyed a similar structure would probably emerge anyway. Working with unions is actually pretty helpful in some industries, because they can react faster than government and have a different perspective to the employers.


Oh sorry I did t realise we were treating all unions like the one Aerius is in.

[Eleas]

No. So here's a bit of flamebait. The whole purpose of a union is to cartelize the labor market to raise workers' compensation. The ultimate goal is to increase workers' standards of living. When you accept that it's the government's job to enforce a minimum standard of living and basic human rights, the union automatically becomes superfluous.

That does not follow. In countries such as mine, unions are a check against constant erosion of workers' rights. Said erosion is a subtle process, and the process of alerting the government to such a thing is often difficult.

Your assertions seem to be roughly similar to stating that since Canada hasn't been the victim of a major military incursion since forever, therefore Canada has solved the problem and needs no armed forces, as the government provides equal service in the form of the police.

Even in their heyday, unions were crude instruments at best:

Unions differ between countries.

[madd0ct0r]

It's exactly the same as the military in a peaceful Country (like canada).

The unions are not exactly useful, but they're a deterrent to parties who benefit from dismantling workers rights - such as richer employers or governments.

And, as long as membership isn't compulsory, they will only continue to survive if they can evolve and continue to offer a service to their members, such as Health and Safety enforcement.

I'm not a member and never have been, but I fully demand my right to join should I need it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Even living in Socialist Hell Hole (tm) Finland I've had multiple instances in which Unions have been required on multiple times to back you up against one cunt of an employer.

E: Hell it was on the radio today on how some companies in the Olkiluoto 3 construction had not been allowed to unionise, where underpaid and where threatened with firing for speaking to media.

[K. A. Pital]

No, because when conditions worsen (they inevitably will when unions as a worker class counterbalance to the capitalists are crushed) the system will collapse. So we don't need unions if we seek to destroy the system.

[Skgoa]

Even living in Socialist Hell Hole (tm) Finland I've had multiple instances in which Unions have been required on multiple times to back you up against one cunt of an employer.

E: Hell it was on the radio today on how some companies in the Olkiluoto 3 construction had not been allowed to unionise, where underpaid and where threatened with firing for speaking to media.

Yeah, the number one reason for unions is that "lone worker vs. big corporation" is a pretty unfair fight. That's also why strikes are an acceptable tool: they are the ONLY tool workers have in a labour dispute. Workers in non-unionized industries are worse of on average than those who have strong unions. So yeah, we need unions.

[Starglider]

Unions would be more tolerable if we had the equivalent of anti-trust legislation for them. If in any given industry or plant there were three or four unions competing to deliver the best deal for both the workers and management, then overheads and dues would be kept down and everyone involved would have some flexibility when union-management negotiations break down; go with another union. Companies aggregate capital and workers to function more efficiently in the marketplace, but when they get too big they tend to lose efficiency and resort to relying on barriers to entry to beat competition. Giant monopolistic companies are almost universally regarded as bad (except by socialists who approve government-owned monopolies) and hence we have anti-trust legislation. Workers organising on a small scale can benefit both themselves and employers; in IT a lot of small consultancies are exactly this, they provide IT staff to larger companies with a guarantee of quality, a legal framework and without the need to waste money on HR support. Unfortunately unions utterly reject competition and immediately aspire to monopoly status within their industry, so they tend to glom together and then become entitled assholes who care little about either workers or employers.

[Eleas]

Unions would be more tolerable if we had the equivalent of anti-trust legislation for them. If in any given industry or plant there were three or four unions competing to deliver the best deal for both the workers and management, then overheads and dues would be kept down and everyone involved would have some flexibility when union-management negotiations break down; go with another union. Companies aggregate capital and workers to function more efficiently in the marketplace, but when they get too big they tend to lose efficiency and resort to relying on barriers to entry to beat competition. Giant monopolistic companies are almost universally regarded as bad (except by socialists who approve government-owned monopolies) and hence we have anti-trust legislation.

That would be a strawman, if you mean this in the absolutist sense. We have plenty of socialists here who do not approve of blanket nationalization or indeed monopolistic nationalization.

Workers organising on a small scale can benefit both themselves and employers; in IT a lot of small consultancies are exactly this, they provide IT staff to larger companies with a guarantee of quality, a legal framework and without the need to waste money on HR support. Unfortunately unions utterly reject competition and immediately aspire to monopoly status within their industry,

An absolutist assertion that I'd like to see proven.

so they tend to glom together and then become entitled assholes who care little about either workers or employers.

[Losonti Tokash]

How is this even a question? Unions go away and your worker protections become useless because you no longer have advocates in your workplace. Without coalitions of unions your protections are virtually guaranteed to be rendered toothless or removed entirely because you no longer have a lobbying organization to oppose something like the US Chamber of Commerce.

[Surlethe]

No. So here's a bit of flamebait. The whole purpose of a union is to cartelize the labor market to raise workers' compensation. The ultimate goal is to increase workers' standards of living. When you accept that it's the government's job to enforce a minimum standard of living and basic human rights, the union automatically becomes superfluous.

That does not follow. In countries such as mine, unions are a check against constant erosion of workers' rights. Said erosion is a subtle process, and the process of alerting the government to such a thing is often difficult.

I am not sure what "workers' rights" are, and therefore am not sure that I believe they should exist. This point about political economy is probably the only valid argument for the existence of unions, and it relies on the assumption that union organization is the only way to get the government to keep enforcing a minimum standard of living in the citizenry. I do not think that's true --- even in the US, where the unions are broken, the government still provides a minimum standard of living.

Even in their heyday, unions were crude instruments at best:

Unions differ between countries.

I am sure they do, but at the same time I believe that the definition of "union" is "cartelization of the labor market." I would love to hear how unions operate in Scandinavia, and how they're different from North American unions.

[Eleas]

That does not follow. In countries such as mine, unions are a check against constant erosion of workers' rights. Said erosion is a subtle process, and the process of alerting the government to such a thing is often difficult.

I am not sure what "workers' rights" are, and therefore am not sure that I believe they should exist.

Workers' rights exist in order to protect a worker from being exploited by a company otherwise easily able to stifle dissent, impoverish, imprison, or kill the worker. All of these things have historically been very real threats levied against workers and particularly pro-union workers, in this country and others. As HDS's example shows, companies haven't stopped trying to do stuff like this.

This point about political economy is probably the only valid argument for the existence of unions, and it relies on the assumption that union organization is the only way to get the government to keep enforcing a minimum standard of living in the citizenry. I do not think that's true --- even in the US, where the unions are broken, the government still provides a minimum standard of living.

The sheer volume of complaints against the system and the growing poverty in the USA would indicate that this minimum standard of living thus provided is below tolerable levels.

I am sure they do, but at the same time I believe that the definition of "union" is "cartelization of the labor market." I would love to hear how unions operate in Scandinavia, and how they're different from North American unions.

Well, just as you can't speak authoritatively about Scandinavian unions, I cannot in good conscience expound on the particulars of unions in the US. However, all those things you speak of the government doing (re "making sure that kids aren't getting their arms torn off in factories and corporations aren't effectively enslaving miners in company towns"), well, such things were enforced by the unions in this country. It's all very well to say that the government should ensure these things, but I've yet to see an example of it happening. Indeed, many government employees are paid low wages, and were it not for the unions, those jobs would be the same kind of meatgrinder as anything we've heard of in your news.

Also, there is the problem that in the fight between a big company and a worker, the government's incentive is to help the company. The company benefits the country as a whole and thus the government (through taxation, increased revenue, et cetera), and is easily able to effect lobbying or simply threaten to invest elsewhere. There is any number of way to slow down government intervention to a crawl; meanwhile, the company will be raking in money hand over fist exploiting entirely legal loopholes in the existing regulations.

[aieeegrunt]

Unions are a workers ONLY defense against the majority of employers who would absolutely love to roll the clock back to Dickensian oppression. Government as an alternative is worse than useless, because guess where the majority of a government's tax revenue and more importantly campaign contributions comes from?

It's no coincidence that the lot of the worker has taken such a dramatic downturn in a nation where unions have done the same.

[Eulogy]

Unions are a workers ONLY defense against the majority of employers who would absolutely love to roll the clock back to Dickensian oppression. Government as an alternative is worse than useless, because guess where the majority of a government's tax revenue and more importantly campaign contributions comes from?

It's no coincidence that the lot of the worker has taken such a dramatic downturn in a nation where unions have done the same.

That said, unions obviously are not faultless either. If they do not rein themselves in, simple economy will.

Multiple unions for a given industry and antitrust legislation for unions can keep them in check, just like for companies, without brutal mafia-style self-policing (as has been said already). If GM had the option of picking the more reasonable union, do you think they'd be as deep in a hole? And if one union doesn't do its job or betrays its workers, said workers can go to another union.

Unions unchecked cause the same problems they do today.

[Losonti Tokash]

Is "going to another union" the same argument as "just don't work there"? Is there any evidence that GM was ruined by unions as opposed to short sighted corporate leadership? Has a union ever welded a factory's emergency exits shut or denied their members access to restrooms while on the clock?

[Bedlam]

Unions would be more tolerable if we had the equivalent of anti-trust legislation for them. If in any given industry or plant there were three or four unions competing to deliver the best deal for both the workers and management, then overheads and dues would be kept down and everyone involved would have some flexibility when union-management negotiations break down; go with another union. Companies aggregate capital and workers to function more efficiently in the marketplace, but when they get too big they tend to lose efficiency and resort to relying on barriers to entry to beat competition. Giant monopolistic companies are almost universally regarded as bad (except by socialists who approve government-owned monopolies) and hence we have anti-trust legislation. Workers organising on a small scale can benefit both themselves and employers; in IT a lot of small consultancies are exactly this, they provide IT staff to larger companies with a guarantee of quality, a legal framework and without the need to waste money on HR support. Unfortunately unions utterly reject competition and immediately aspire to monopoly status within their industry, so they tend to glom together and then become entitled assholes who care little about either workers or employers.

The problem with multiple unions per organisation is that it weakens their position and makes it easier for the company to play them against each other. If you have 4 unions instead of 1 then you might be looking at 25% of your workers striking rather than 100% which is much easier for the company to ignore.

[Surlethe]

They also compete against one another for bigger slices of the company's revenue and are less willing to come to a deal, as we saw with American Airlines.

[Stark]

A well-run union in an environment with existing rights, and an industry where workers require advocacy, doesn't necessarily need to strike. I'm not sure how much of this hilarious thread is coloured by America's literally incomprehensibly stupid legal background to IR, but in real countries corporations seek out and are happy to engage with unions on worker issues.

Striking might be the most memorable or obvious of union activities, but I don't think its the most important or even the most destructive. After all, you can have overblown public sector unions enshrining lazy drug addicts in do-nothing jobs without striking. You can trade away benefits, protections or exceptions for bullshit without strikes.

[Havok]

Surlethe seems to be arguing under "Unions don't work correctly, so we don't need them." as opposed to "A properly functioning, well run, noninsane union is not needed.".

That said, even in Utopia Canada, businesses are about making money, not being socially helpful. If a company can generate more profits by cutting things like pensions, vacation etc., they will. It may not happen the second unions disappear, but it will happen.

Unless people want to actually make an argument against wealth and power not having sway over the people that actually run businesses.

[aieeegrunt]

Management enlightened enough to realize that happy well paid workers who feel secure in their jobs is the biggest productivity boost there is, is the best environment. It's also the most profitable long term.

However all it takes is one asshole senior boss with the "treat em mean and keep em keen" short term mentality and it all goes to shit.

The place I work at now, 8 years ago it was a fun place to work and you'd build 4000 units a shift. Now it's an annoying shithole full of stupid harassing the workers makes them work better logic, everybody is always pissed off, and we struggle to build 3200 a shift. This is 110% due to management moving away from the "happy worker is a good worker" paradigm to the slave labour paradigm. I'm trying to decide whether it's worth starting a union drive, or if I should just bid adieu to the sinking ship and find another job.

I'm talking about ridiculous bullshit like "you can't leave until your shift achieves quota", Dilbertian stuff like that. All that did was piss me off to the point where I deliberately stop working when I hit quota + 10% or so. Fuck em.

[Havok]

Are you sure? Sounds just as plausible that the "happy worker is a good worker" could have lead to the "happy worker is a lazy worker" then management came down. Not saying you are lying, but I have seen it happen both ways, and it is never entirely one sides fault.

[aieeegrunt]

I'm not saying that can never happen, but in this case it was absolutely asshole management. One key indicator is that just about all of our "overachievers"; you know the guys who are happy to do three times the expected amount of work have quit for other jobs, or become bitter and stopped putting out. The other key indicator is that our plant is the absolute gold standard for both productivity and quality for the industry. This won't last; like I said the 110 percenters are either leaving or getting bitter.

Personally I used to do both a LOT of skilled trade level work and more or less did the shift supervisors job for her in organizing our line and our schedule too because I used to have that mentality. I got sick of getting passed over for promotion and never getting recognized for it because management was taking the view that if I was willing to do Grade 6 work for a Grade 3 paycheck, why pay me for it. The last round of job postings was ridiculous, the chief criteria appeared to be "how tight a seal can your lips form", and whether you'll rat your co workers out. I had not one or two but THIRTEEN coworkers tell me it's ridiculous I got passed over.

Next week I came in, and did nothing but run the machine in front of me. Every time I saw a problem and felt like I should step in, I told myself "Grade 3 button pressing monkey" and did nothing. Hmmm I think they're welding the wrong caps on that part, a hummer shock should have a bell cap. Wait a minute, I have a shift supervisor AND a quality auditor that get paid to stand around and do nothing but drink fucking coffee all day to watch for things like that. Grade 3 button pressing monkey, just support weld them and move on. We're spread all over the place today, everybody is working individually and not as unit, we're going to get nothing done, also these parts need to be finished by lunch so they can be on the truck by 4 and we're building a different order first, should change the schedule. Nope, supervisor gets paid Grade 7 to organize us, not my job. Grade 3 button pressing monkey. The set up on this machine was done wrong, I can tell just by looking at it. Nope, I'm not supposed to do an adjustment like that, we're supposed to page a Grade 7 machine specialist. Stop the machine, shut down the line, and make the call, monkey.

By the end of the week a line that used to make 500+ units a day with no quality issues had dropped to 250 or so with tons of scrap. How do you like me now fuckers! I won't be able to do this much longer, I kind of need to overperform, but I'm not giving the milk away for free either. So like I said, it's either union drive/mutiny time, or time to find a new job.

[LadyTevar]

Why do we need Unions?

Upper Big Branch Mine was a Non-Union Mine, ran by Massey Energy. The miners knew the mine was trouble, but there was no union to protect them if they complained. It was shut up and work the mine, or find another job, and 29 men paid the price for it.