I was involved in the Union Movement and I know how Union members think. They are, on average, more progressive than non union workers, they understand the value and effect of collective action. I always figured that about 60% of union members and their families will vote for the more progressive party and 40% for the party that does not support their best interests, the party on the Right. This number is a pretty consistent regardless who is in power at the time. I suspect this 60/40 split is true in the USA as well as in Canada. It is a voting block that cannot be ignored.
The biggest problem unions and politicians have is to actually get these union voters in front of a ballot, same as any voter. If you can do this, they will do the right thing. Unions tend to become far too complacent on this issue.
This was easily seen in the Wisconsin effort to recall Governor Walker who had stripped public unions of their bargaining rights. There were many very noisy rallies and it looked like walker was history. Such was not to be the case.
On voting night CNN showed one of the fat cat union leaders leaning back in his chair with his feet up on the desk prematurely congratulating himself for causing Walker’s defeat. I was yelling at the screen, “Get off your fat ass and start phoning your members! Load them into cars and drag them to the polls!” Yes, they will do the right thing but you have to give them the chance to mark their ballot!
Many people complain about unions involvement in politics. They say their union might support something they do not agree with. I have a different attitude. I pay taxes but often a Government I do not support or vote for gets in power and does things I do not agree with. I still have to pay taxes. I still have to finance the things they do whether I approve of them or not. Same as Unions. If your Union does something with your dues you do not like, like supporting Democrats, get involved and change the policy. Get off your fat ass, go to a meeting, make a motion and vote against spending that money. If enough of your fellow members agree with you, the policy will change. The California Air Traffic Controllers Union did this when they voted to support Ronald Regan for Governor. They supported Regan right up to the point where he fired all of them! They quickly found that voting to support people who do not have their best interests at heart does not work. Unions are more democratic than politicians but complaining the day after the meeting you did not attend is not the way to affect policy. Same as Politics, if you don’t like a policy, change it. Simple. Vote.
I have always said, “When politicians start leaving Unions alone, Unions will consider leaving politicians alone”. Until then, game on!
I just posted a rant about unions, now you got me thinking! We should chat about that sometime.
ReplyDeleteKaryn Lee, I posted back on your Blog.
DeleteGiven that you're a hockey fan, I'm pretty sure it would be entertaining to hear your views regarding that labour - management disagreement!
ReplyDeleteThat is a pretty soft pitch from you Kevin. The answer id simple, I want the players to get a fair deal, they deserve a fair, negotiated share of revenues. I do not think delaying or cancelling the season is good for either party in the negotiations but if that is what it takes, then that is what it takes. I am a hockey fan but I am a fan of the players and the team.
DeleteThe NFL in the USA just went through a disastrous period where they brought in scab referees. I refused to watch any of the games but reports of the stupid calls made by real estate salesmen pretending to be refs damaged the stats of some teams for the whole season and lowered the integrity of the game itself. If the players had any principles they would not have gone on the field while the scabs were there and the dispute would have been settled quickly so they have only themselves to blame.
On that union vain, one of the blogs I read regularly had a very interesting post by a reader. Here is the link:
Deletehttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/a_big_deal_off_the_field.php
Good article Alex, thanks for the link.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI am also a huge hockey fan, and as a union member all my working life, I don't agree with the NHL players going to Europe to take jobs from the hockey players there.
No disagreement here. They make enough that they can take a few months off while it is resolved.
DeleteI would think that most of them simply want to play hockey.
DeleteChicago was a good example of what unions do. How can teachers use students as hostages for higher wages? How can the Chicago Symphony strike when the their average musician makes 173K a year plus benefits? They are holding the public hostage. If they are good musicians, people will be willing to pay. All this has done is turn me off to unions and their cause.
ReplyDeleteEliminate minimum wage and wage controls. The economy will take care of itself. When people attempt to manipulate economies, this is what happens.
Maybe they are very good musicians and people are willing to pay the ticket price. If that were not the case, there would be no symphony. Justin Bieber is not in a union but probably gets that much per concert. Who is his "hostage"?
DeleteIf low wages and unregulated working conditions were the path to a strong economy then I can think of many third world countries that should be world economic leaders. It does not work that way.
It is no coincidence that the countries that produce the best quality goods (think automobiles and medical equipment) also have strong unions and enjoy the best working conditions.
DeleteI could support getting rid of the minimum wage if we get the illegal aliens out of the country, and limit legal immigration to the point that every adult who wanted a job could get one at a wage that paid at least $13.00 per hour.
DeleteI am not sure what wage controls you are talking about.
Paul
How can teachers use students as hostages for higher wages?
ReplyDeleteThey're doing that right now in Ontario. First thing they did when they didn't like the new legislation up there was to take it out on the students.
The only thing parents hate is the loss of the free baby sitting teachers provide. Academic losses can easily be made up over the rest of the year given the short amount of actual teaching during the school day.
DeleteMy wife has taught for 28 years and our daughter is also a teacher. One change is that parents take less of a responsibility for their children's education and less of an interest. Doing homework with their child or making sure it is being done is the exception, rather than the rule now. The other major impact is the number of students from dysfunctional families and the number of disciplinary problems that interrupt the class. Public schools are mandated to take these students and private / parochial schools dump these students on public schools. Teachers are now spending more and more time dealing with the see-saw laws and policies being implemented by government and less time actually teaching. My wife is also a member of the union and would never think of holding her students "hostage" as part of collective bargaining.
DeleteI was the political coordinator for my steelworker union's local for 20 years. Getting out the vote and getting information to my membership was the best part of that job.
ReplyDeleteAs to unions in general, the most important function of the union was protection from arbitrary behavior on the part of management, the ability to be done with rather than done to makes all the difference in the world to ones work life. As an aside: I worked union jobs and non-union jobs over the years, the union jobs paid better-more money is not a bad thing.
Using the term 'hostages' when one side in a collective bargaining dispute employs a legal strike or lockout strategy simply displays a gross ignorance of what free collective bargaining is all about.
ReplyDeleteIn the NHL it's the owners who have 'locked-out' the players. That's legal and in the scheme of collective bargaining it's a tactic the owners think will pressure the players to concede.
I just wonder why some folks only condemn unions as 'hostage takers' but never employers. Are not the NHL owners holding the fans and collateral businesses hostage given that logic?
Use of inflammatory anti-union rhetoric simply displays an individuals prejudices and bias rather than a reasoned argument to support their point of view.
Good point Rick. In 1981 we were locked out for three months over the winter. We lived in the north where living costs in winter were very high. The company was holding our families hostage to try to force us to take concessions. Not being able to attend a symphony performance and not being able to buy fuel oil for your house or food for your kids are not comparable.
DeleteWe have friends who are teachers and the only complaint they get from parents during a teachers strike is the loss of their government paid baby sitting service.
When the US lettuce pickers struck over getting access to toilets in the fields it was not about holding anybody hostage, it was about gaining working conditions that the rest of us take for granted.
Well said Rick.
DeleteI expect it's got nothing to do with "gross ignorance", it's simply a basic disagreement with the idea of free collective bargaining in general.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I never condemn the employer because he's the one offering the job. He's not forcing the employee to take the job. If the employee doesn't like the job, the employee has the choice not to work for the employer. Why would any of it be the employers "fault".
Kevin, if you were a lettuce picker would you go to the employer and negotiate a deal where you and only you got access to a toilet or would you negotiate a deal where all pickers got access? If the latter were the case then you would be bargaining for the collective, something you disagree with.
DeleteShould the employer be condemned for not providing toilets in the first place? Or was forcing the pickers to make the choice between loosing piece work income by walking a quarter mile to the bush to do their business or peeing (or worse) on the lettuce a good business decision on his part?
Croft, I have a different take, having been in a union environment and watching our facility go from 300+ employees when I started to 9 when I retired mostly as a result of unreasonable demands and a "not my job" attitude in spite of $45 per hour wage rates (for unskilled labour) and a 50% fringe benefit rate on top of that, I'm not sure that there is a great future for manufacturing in Canada. In Mexico the same work done in a virtually identical factory to ours is done by 40 employees who love their jobs and would do almost anything to keep them. The real kicker, though, is that their costs are still lower than our Canadian costs, even with four times the labour complement!
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see what shakes out in the Canadian auto industry at the end of the just signed 4 year agreements, how many plants will be shut down and head to the US or Mexico?
Almcc
There will always be workers in some country willing to do work cheaper than where it is done now. I am sure there is some place in China where that same work could be done for half what the Mexican workers earn. There is no end to the downward spiral once it starts. Bargaining your workers into poverty is not the job of the union. At some point the government must become involved. There is a place for regulations.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any logic in your response to Almcc at all. I also don't see where you addressed what he had to say. I don't think he was talking about moving jobs to countries where the jobs can be done cheaper...I think he was talking about unrealistic union demands that cause that to happen.
DeleteKevin
DeleteYou seem to be someone who has it made without really ever having to worked for it. Inherited? What Amlcc experienced had more to do with companies finding someone who was willing to work for pennies on the dollar and without regard to them as human beings. I suppose you attribute the demise of the mom and pop small businesses to the unions, rather than everyone flocking to Walmart to buy that cheap China made product made by cheap labor.
Richard L.
You seem to be someone who has it made without really ever having to worked for it. Inherited?
DeleteHi Richard, totally the opposite actually. I was supposed to be the playboy son of a millionaire, but my Dad let me down. So instead I owned my own small business for many years and then sold it and did contract work for a few years after that. Always self employed. Except for a brief 6 month stint working for someone else, but then when I decided didn't like my employer, I quit.
Richard, you also don't address the unrealistic demands of unions, instead blaming your problem on cheaper labour being available elsewhere. And it's not that I love Walmart, but I will buy what I need from whoever can supply it to me at the best price. Don't care if it was made by a unionized employee or not.
All a union can do is to negotiate a balance between the workers needs and the employers ability to pay. There are some conditions neither party has any control over.
DeleteIf you are being paid $20 an hour to make steering wheels and your boss finds workers in some other country who will make them for $5 an hour, what do you do? Offer to take an $15 per hour wage cut in order to compete? Does this benefit the workers? Does it benefit the country as a whole? Even if you did you can bet there is some country out there where they can be made for $2 per hour, maybe less. Now what? Offer to work for $1 or $2 per hour or quit and go on welfare?
This is what trying to compete in an unregulated global economy means. It is up to the government to put some controls on this. Letting the companies do whatever they want is not the answer. As the USA found out, low paid workers do not pay taxes. The government has a vested interest here.
There seems to be a limit to the number of replies Blogger will accept.
DeleteKevin, what is an unreasonable demand? Employers once thought asking for a five day week was unreasonable. An eight hour day? We will go broke, said the boss. I remember when we asked for a pension plan better than the few dollars a month the company offered back in the fifties. A way was found and we now retire at 55 with a full pension.
What is "unreasonable" to one generation is common practice to the next. Someone has to put the idea out there.
But all of these things that you mention are currently regulated by Canadian labour laws.
DeleteAnd Kevin, why do you think these things became regulated? Because the corporations demanded it or because the workers and their unions demanded it?
DeleteIf you were 14 it might be worth taking more of my time to explain all this to you but you are old enough to figure it out for yourself. I worked a union job and enjoyed good wages and now enjoy a negotiated pension of 40 some thousand a year. The company I worked for did not go broke because of it. You worked non union and self employed all your life. Maybe you are receiving a big pension but if you are, you are not spending it. You made your choices and are happy with them. I made mine and am happy as well. Lets just leave it at that.
Of course it was because the workers and their unions demanded it. But now that it's done, and it's law, haven't unions outlived their purpose? Of course that was my point, but I'm sure you had that figured out too!
DeleteI was still looking for some response to the issues that Almcc and I brought up. But, it's your blog and you can end the discussion whenever you like.
Kevin, you can rant on all you want, I am just not going to waste my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person. We tried to answer your concerns but you just carry on listening to the sound of your own voice. Go ahead, have fun. Maybe someone else will play your game.
DeleteYikes. Sorry Croft, I thought we were having a reasonable discussion. I didn't realize I was ranting, and I also didn't realize I was being unreasonable. Again, my apologies.
DeleteKevin says: "For me, I never condemn the employer because he's the one offering the job."
ReplyDeleteIn Kevin's world, it would be just fine for women to be paid less than a man for doing the same work because it would be the 'employer's' call as he is offering the job.
In Kevin' world, it would be fine for an employer to force coal miners to go a mile down into the mine without proper ventilation or safety procedures because it's the 'employer's' call as he's offering the job.
In Kevin's world, employer's could willfully discriminate against minority workers because ..... you know the rest.
Kevin's world was tried during the Industrial Revolution and it failed. The greed of employer's in the early 20th century (Henry Ford etc.) forced workers to form unions simply to get a decent wage and safe working conditions.
In Kevin's world, he would like to revert to the way things were during the time of Charles Dickens where employers were never condemned as they were just offering jobs.
Once again Rick, you try and twist my words around without addressing any of the issues I brought up.
DeleteKevin's world is now complete:
ReplyDeleteCorporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6#ixzz281YPLLcc
An employer cannot force anyone to do anything. Free world economics. If you want a job, you have the right to accept or deny the conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe big 3 are in Mexico, they make a ton of money, so do the stockholders, and the workers too!. The workers don't make 25 dollars an hour spinning lugnuts, but they do make between 1000 and 1400 dollars a month. That is not a living wage in Mexico, it is middle class and you live quite nicely.
The beef I have with unions is that the money never seems to get to the worker. It is like a beaurocracy, to many top level union employees taking the icing off the cake, and the majority have to share the crumbs of the cake.
What countries don't have minimum wage? 197 do have it, so that leave about 10% without a minimum wage. Mexico's minimum wage is ridiculous. It is about 60 pesos a day. No one in Mexico works in the formal market for 60 pesos a day. It is used as a rate tool. You may earn, 2, 4, 10, or a thousand minimum wages per day. Fines for crimes, traffic tickets, sanctions are measured in minimum wage. If I cheat on my taxes I can be fined 20 minimum wages, or 1200 pesos. It is all in the writing.
I still believe, minimum wage and forced wages from unions doesn't work. Competition will drive the economy.
"The beef I have with unions is that the money never seems to get to the worker."
DeleteIn my Union we had +/- 10,000 members (all in BC at that time) and we paid 1.2% (later increased to 1.5%) union dues. We had an office with 6 business agents, a secretary treasurer, three vice presidents and a president. BA's were paid 110% of our top rate, the ST and VP's 115% and the president 125%. If there was a strike or lockout they worked but did not get paid. The only "perk" they had was a car. Their benefits were the same as ours and their hours longer. They were worth every penny and if there ever was one who was no good, we could vote him or her out.
If we did not have that union we would not have had 6 weeks vacation, top pay for the industry (telecommunications), paid sick time and retirement on a good pension at age 55. We were very proud of what we had and the company did not complain either. They had dedicated, long term, well trained, happy workers and had the ability to cherry pick the best new hires because they offered better wages and conditions than the competition. They were always in the top tier of profitable companies in Canada.
I spent many hours outside changing tracks on Sno Cats in driving snow and once had to dig down through more than 15 feet of snow to find the front door of a mountaintop microwave repeater site. We were treated well and treated the company well in return. We felt that we owned our jobs and our department never had more that part time managers.
You have missed what Rick was telling you. Without strong unions workers were exposed to poor and dangerous working conditions. They were paid according to relationship with the boss, color and sex. They could not complain or they would lose their job and be even worse off. There was no dignity and no incentive to do a better job.
Yeah, in Canada the money definitely gets to the worker. Just ask any bus driver in Ottawa. Imagine making $60k a year to drive a bus! It is laughable...
Delete