Do we still need unions?

[Darth Wong]

I'm going to partically disagree with Aerius on the 'big unions time is past'.

The problem with those unions are the people running them, not the people themselves.

Take, for example, Sid Ryan. He's a photo-op asshole. Plain and simple. He hears of any protest, he is there. Any labor dispute, he's there.

Even if his union is not involved, he's there 'showing support'.

Bullshit.

I've seen the man away from the camera. He's an asshole. I've watched him shove people out of the way to get to a food plater. And not politely either.

And he's in charge of a big union. That's why that union behaves badly. It's just the guy running it being his true self.

Isn't that true of anyone who rises to a powerful position? That's the problem with unions: if they're too powerful, then the people at the top are inevitably powerful as well, and that means a certain personality type will gravitate to the position.

We see it with politicians and CEOs; it's just as inevitable with unions.

[Simon_Jester]

Isn't that true of anyone who rises to a powerful position? That's the problem with unions: if they're too powerful, then the people at the top are inevitably powerful as well, and that means a certain personality type will gravitate to the position.

We see it with politicians and CEOs; it's just as inevitable with unions.

True. So, is it better to have a powerful union (led by assholes) that hopefully keeps corporate management (also led by assholes) in check? Or is it better to have a weaker union, which does not attract assholes, but also has less power to restrain the assholes in management?

[Alkaloid]

I would argue that a larger number of smaller unions is the best option. That way, unions remain relatively small concentrations of power, but you will have several unions in any given industry, so that they are actually able to work in concert to apply pressure to industry without the individual power of union leaders increasing. I'll admit though that that does get difficult in some cases, such as teachers, firefighters etc. where there is a massive over representation of one type of employee than you would get working for say, an airline.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't that true of anyone who rises to a powerful position? That's the problem with unions: if they're too powerful, then the people at the top are inevitably powerful as well, and that means a certain personality type will gravitate to the position.

We see it with politicians and CEOs; it's just as inevitable with unions.

True. So, is it better to have a powerful union (led by assholes) that hopefully keeps corporate management (also led by assholes) in check? Or is it better to have a weaker union, which does not attract assholes, but also has less power to restrain the assholes in management?

The problem with the "duelling assholes" approach is that you, the worker, are merely a pawn to be used in their power struggle. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that they will have your best interests at heart.

I'd say it's better to reduce the power of corporations through stronger worker protection laws, thus reducing the need for unions.

[Alkaloid]

I'd say it's better to reduce the power of corporations through stronger worker protection laws, thus reducing the need for unions.

Stronger protection laws are most commonly the result of pressure by unions though.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem with the "duelling assholes" approach is that you, the worker, are merely a pawn to be used in their power struggle. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that they will have your best interests at heart.

Very true- and if you can regulate corporations and keep them regulated without the need for strong unions, that should work very well.

As an American looking at the history of labor relations in the US since, oh, 1970 or so, I'm skeptical about whether that's a reliable strategy.

[Darth Wong]

I'd say it's better to reduce the power of corporations through stronger worker protection laws, thus reducing the need for unions.

Stronger protection laws are most commonly the result of pressure by unions though.

Are they? That might have been true once, but in recent decades, unions seem interested only in securing protections for themselves, not for all workers. In fact, unions have a vested interest in ensuring that non-union workers have markedly inferior working conditions to union workers.

[Lord Zentei]

Inevitably, supply and demand theory implies that if you put a price floor on benefits+wages, you'll have more supply than demand, leading to unemployment - and one way of getting around that for the unions is to shut out non-union workers.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Isn't that true of anyone who rises to a powerful position? That's the problem with unions: if they're too powerful, then the people at the top are inevitably powerful as well, and that means a certain personality type will gravitate to the position.

We see it with politicians and CEOs; it's just as inevitable with unions.

There are plenty of organisational design and psychology practices that can be employed to reduce that, they are just REALLY unpopular in classical american trained business thought.

[Alkaloid]

Are they? That might have been true once, but in recent decades, unions seem interested only in securing protections for themselves, not for all workers. In fact, unions have a vested interest in ensuring that non-union workers have markedly inferior working conditions to union workers.

It might be a location thing. There are some local unions I have real issues with, the Firefighters union here for example is a classic example of people who failed to go up the ranks in the organisation and try to run the union in a way to affect the running of the actual fire services as a result, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The big trade unions are powerful and tend to be obnoxious and generally full of people aiming to go into politics or playing politics, but the smaller ones tend to be fine and mostly try to sort out workers issues and otherwise keep their heads down.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well in 12 years of being a shopsteward, I've learned that helping yourself and working with your union rep is essential for representation....

[Simon_Jester]

There are plenty of organisational design and psychology practices that can be employed to reduce that, they are just REALLY unpopular in classical american trained business thought.

Could you expand on that?

[bobalot]

I'd say it's better to reduce the power of corporations through stronger worker protection laws, thus reducing the need for unions.

Stronger protection laws are most commonly the result of pressure by unions though.

Are they? That might have been true once, but in recent decades, unions seem interested only in securing protections for themselves, not for all workers. In fact, unions have a vested interest in ensuring that non-union workers have markedly inferior working conditions to union workers.

Not always true, over here in Australia, there were a few Unions that agreed to pay cuts so that casual workers could keep their jobs when the GFC first hit. Some do ensure casuals get the same conditions as permanent staff (this is entirely self-serving obviously). However, generally I think you are right, many have become self-serving machines.

[Eulogy]

In fact, unions have a vested interest in ensuring that non-union workers have markedly inferior working conditions to union workers.

And then they wonder why there is great unrest on the floor, and why the nonunion workers are sabotaging the union ones and no work is getting done. And then the company tanks.

[The Yosemite Bear]

which seems wierd, and btw not true as far as my union is concerned, the SEIU and UNITE HERE split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, so we could improve the situation with non-union workers, and because most of our Public Service and tourism based workers can't actually strike.

since HERE represents Hotel Entertainment & Restaurants we also tend to pass a lot of our expensive legal fights on to grocery workers, topless bar workers, most hotel workers, and casino workers, who are not union at all.

[JointStrikeFighter]

There are plenty of organisational design and psychology practices that can be employed to reduce that, they are just REALLY unpopular in classical american trained business thought.

Could you expand on that?

A lot of US companies and organizations are arranged in a very top town command approach where the boss is the boss and what he says goes! Elsewhere in the world more organic, power sharing organizational structures are common.

I can't really remember the correct terms, I'll look them up in my old textbooks later today.

[Darth Wong]

which seems wierd, and btw not true as far as my union is concerned, the SEIU and UNITE HERE split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, so we could improve the situation with non-union workers, and because most of our Public Service and tourism based workers can't actually strike.

since HERE represents Hotel Entertainment & Restaurants we also tend to pass a lot of our expensive legal fights on to grocery workers, topless bar workers, most hotel workers, and casino workers, who are not union at all.

You know, since you're a union steward I don't expect you to do anything but defend the unions, but I spent a decade in the auto industry, and everybody in the auto industry who wasn't part of the union ... was getting screwed by the union. The same was true in the power company. The public sector unions say they're fighting for worker rights, but what they actually mean is "we want 100% of the employees to be part of the union, and we want all contracted work to be stopped immediately so you can hire more union guys to do it instead".

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't forget about all the threats and actual violence big unions employ to keep union members in line. This is no fucking joke with groups like the teamsters union in the US which is more or less a criminal enterprise.

[madd0ct0r]

So American unions are particularly dysfunctional? Is this just a function of the size of american unions, corporations, market and population?

[Simon_Jester]

Question: how do we define the 'big unions?' Because we can identify some unions and say that they're bad for various reasons (teamsters, auto industry), while others are talking about unions in entirely different industries and countries.

We have the original post:

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?

Yosemite Bear is talking about service sector unions and his experience is in the US, a country infamous for having weak worker protections and rapacious managers. Darth Wong is talking about the auto industry in Canada; the auto industry has been unionized heavily for at least half a century. And I infer that at least part of his experience is in Canada, where the legal and political regime is different from the US to begin with. Then there's aieeegrunt, who's talking from the perspective of an assembly line worker in the auto industry, again in the US, and thinks the industry would turn into a hellhole without the unions.

So I think aerius was onto something when he specified what kind of country he was talking about. You have to decide whether your country is likely or unlikely to end up at war before deciding how big an army it needs; it stands to reason you have to decide whether the working class in your country is likely or unlikely to get screwed over before deciding how badly you need unions.

Does anyone know of a country where unions have been quietly withering away, but worker protections are still strong, though? The US experience isn't encouraging there.

[The Yosemite Bear]

then we also have someone who talked about unions in the capitalist paradise of Singapore...

[Mr Bean]

Don't forget about all the threats and actual violence big unions employ to keep union members in line. This is no fucking joke with groups like the teamsters union in the US which is more or less a criminal enterprise.

It's more accurate to say that criminal enterprises took over the teamsters which then began employing many criminal style methods in order to enforce discipline and maintain teamster loyalty.

There was a time in America where the mobs really did run many American unions. And even when these actual criminals were cleared out, the mindset and methods remain even if the Mob is no longer getting a direct cut of union dues or company profits.

[Darth Wong]

Yosemite Bear is talking about service sector unions and his experience is in the US, a country infamous for having weak worker protections and rapacious managers. Darth Wong is talking about the auto industry in Canada; the auto industry has been unionized heavily for at least half a century. And I infer that at least part of his experience is in Canada, where the legal and political regime is different from the US to begin with. Then there's aieeegrunt, who's talking from the perspective of an assembly line worker in the auto industry, again in the US, and thinks the industry would turn into a hellhole without the unions.

So I think aerius was onto something when he specified what kind of country he was talking about. You have to decide whether your country is likely or unlikely to end up at war before deciding how big an army it needs; it stands to reason you have to decide whether the working class in your country is likely or unlikely to get screwed over before deciding how badly you need unions.

Does anyone know of a country where unions have been quietly withering away, but worker protections are still strong, though? The US experience isn't encouraging there.

The CAW is no more powerful than the UAW. If worker protection laws have to do with the strength of unions, it begs the question of why Canada has put so much more worker protection legislation into place without correspondingly more powerful unions. I would say that unions and worker protection laws have very little relevance to each other, despite the former habitually taking credit for the latter.

The difference is cultural IMO. Even liberals in the US often brag (yes, brag) about how much they distrust government, and they often identify anti-government sentiment as part of what it means to be an American. This kind of cultural mindset is naturally going to be hostile to legislative solutions to working conditions.

[Simon_Jester]

The CAW is no more powerful than the UAW. If worker protection laws have to do with the strength of unions, it begs the question of why Canada has put so much more worker protection legislation into place without correspondingly more powerful unions. I would say that unions and worker protection laws have very little relevance to each other, despite the former habitually taking credit for the latter.

The difference is cultural IMO. Even liberals in the US often brag (yes, brag) about how much they distrust government, and they often identify anti-government sentiment as part of what it means to be an American. This kind of cultural mindset is naturally going to be hostile to legislative solutions to working conditions.

Yeah, and it looks like aieeegrunt needs the UAW more than his Canadian counterpart needs the CAW.

Which is why I was asking- are there countries where the unions are weak, but labor laws are strong enough for it not to matter? Or is the idea of having strong labor laws in a country where the unions have withered away strictly theoretical?

[aieeegrunt]

Isn't that true of anyone who rises to a powerful position? That's the problem with unions: if they're too powerful, then the people at the top are inevitably powerful as well, and that means a certain personality type will gravitate to the position.

We see it with politicians and CEOs; it's just as inevitable with unions.

True. So, is it better to have a powerful union (led by assholes) that hopefully keeps corporate management (also led by assholes) in check? Or is it better to have a weaker union, which does not attract assholes, but also has less power to restrain the assholes in management?

The problem with the "duelling assholes" approach is that you, the worker, are merely a pawn to be used in their power struggle. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that they will have your best interests at heart.

I'd say it's better to reduce the power of corporations through stronger worker protection laws, thus reducing the need for unions.

As one of the pawns in question I would say absolutely that I would rather have strong government laws that are strongly enforced than either or both of big business and big unions.

A point of clarification since I appear to have confused some people, I live in Canada, but the auto plant I work in is non-unionized. The only thing saving me from regular management rape sans lube is Canada's labour laws!

Here is an example, this is an actual incident that occurred in the plant I work in two years ago. We were having a lot of trouble with a new piece of equipment that had been brought into our line, it was causing lots of downtime that had to be made up with lots of expensive overtime.

Management's solution, and I am not kidding or exaggerating for effect, was to post a notice telling us we weren't allowed to leave until we'd hit our production quota for the day. I was rendered speechless when I saw it, but I was rendered even more speechless by my pathetic spineless ballsack licking coworkers who were going to go along with it! The only thing that saved me was Canada and Ontario's labour laws state; paraphrasing obviously, that once you've worked 8 hours in a given day or 48 hours in a given week any overtime is voluntary. Went home, printed out the relevant parts, brought them back to work, and shoved them down HR's throats (also I suppose shoving any chance of getting promoted in the process, but fuck it).

I have asshole management. I also have for the most part spineless ballsack sucking rat bastard coworkers, so you can forget about any sort of collective action (once I'd done the work and painted a giant bullseye on my back they were more than happy to take advantage of it of course). This factory is located in a small very rural style Canadian community, I'm sure Darth Wong would have his own tales to tell about small town folksy assholes.

The only thing keeping management in check is Canada's laws. I cannot rely on my coworkers. I definetly cannot rely on being a good worker and management appreciating it. Strong labour laws and a government that stands behind them is best.