« The Problem With Health Spending In A Single Graph | Main | The Houston Janitors Win! »
November 20, 2006
What Union Members Understand
This is great stuff:
November 20, 2006 in Labor | Permalink
Comments
This guy did not mention the profitablilty of the employer or it's competitiveness. He doesn't consider the external factors and foreign competition. All important.
He speaks from one point of view and one only. This may have value for rallying the troops, but it's useless as a meaningful discussion.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 20, 2006 3:26:09 PM
Unfortunately, the progressive blogging community hasn't embraced labor as much as it might, as this Christopher Hayes article on Yearly Kos suggests: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/what_was_missing_at_yearlykos/
Posted by: Adrian | Nov 20, 2006 3:26:52 PM
This guy did not mention the profitablilty of the employer or it's competitiveness. He doesn't consider the external factors and foreign competition. All important.
True. However, unions are not anti-productivity or anti-efficiency, despite the rhetoric. Unions help keep the workforce healthy (less productivity loss due to illness) and committed to the job (less turnover, less money spent training). A motivated workforce that is able to do its job in a safe environment will make fewer mistakes.
There are times when it is not ok to give out raises, or increase benefits. Unions are actually the ones that understand this. Think of the UAW in its talks with GM. But the management "class," if you will, doesn't understand this. When have you ever heard of a CEO, CFO, COO or the 1st couple of layers under them getting a pay cut because of a company's poor performance? When it comes time to negotiate contracts, they will spend money demonizing the union in print and on TV rather than give a raise to the people who are ensuring the company's continued success - or not, if they are being forced to find other jobs.
He speaks from one point of view and one only. This may have value for rallying the troops, but it's useless as a meaningful discussion.
Well, you would know.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 20, 2006 3:40:10 PM
Who is that?
Posted by: djw | Nov 20, 2006 3:42:57 PM
Ack, never mind. Paul Lemmon, as it says clearly.
Posted by: djw | Nov 20, 2006 3:44:01 PM
Adrain, that was a pretty good article. The abandonment of labor is one reason why the Democratic party has been in the minority for so long. Labor has given the Democratic party another shot in Indiana and Ohio, hopefully this second chance will not be squandered.
Posted by: Don | Nov 20, 2006 5:52:24 PM
If djw's "Who is that?" refers to Fred Jones, fredjones05@hotmail.com, the answer is that he's Bob Zimmerman, resident troll at Pandagon, and the reason that Pandagon only allows TypeKey-registered users to comment.
Posted by: Teresa Nielsen Hayden | Nov 20, 2006 7:30:37 PM
Good stuff, but a few quibbles;
"Even poor people had healthcare, everyone had Health Care" Not exactly.
"We make above minimum wage, but we fight for it because we feel solidarity for the workers" Sort of. Unions are pretty left wing in their executive composition so I don't doubt that. There's also that the higher the price floor, the less likely it is that non Union Labor will be hired instead of Union Labor for certain jobs.
Posted by: DRR | Nov 20, 2006 7:51:45 PM
Great video. I wish the Dems would start running some Union reps. As I wrote elsewhere, if one single Democrat or Republican candidate for any office can live for one month strictly on the minimum wage, I will drop everything and join their campaign. Think about how out of touch politicians are and how much of a reality check that would be.
John Edwards, I'm looking at you.
Posted by: Solomon Grundy | Nov 20, 2006 8:42:49 PM
In the begining, the unions were almost always right in what they were fighting for. They've done us all a great service. ("the people who brought you the weekend", etc.)
But now, their record is mixed. Unions are still needed (as shown by the Houston janitors). But I find myself opposing them on big fights. I think it's BS that it is hard to fire a sub-par teacher, and that teachers are allergic to efforts to measure their performance (so what if NCLB sucks; teachers could propose a reasonable alternative to measure teacher performance!).
Friends and family in the auto industry (I'm from Michigan) tell me stories of waiting 3 hours for an electrictian to change a light bulb (to protect union jobs), and guys making $90,000 per year (admittedly by working lots of overtime) while reading the paper half the time at work.
I support the right to organize, but I sure see a lot of cases that reveal that unions are just another self-serving interest group that aren't always capable of striking the right balance.
Posted by: asdf | Nov 20, 2006 9:43:36 PM
asdf,
The problem with anecdotes like that is how people tend to think that they are unique to whatever situation they personally observe.
So the civil service worker, like my dad, is convinced that government workers are lazy and entitled, that they can never be fired, etc. Same with teachers, union shops, whatever can be easily identified as a "group."
I've never been in a union, never worked for the government. I've worked for a couple of schools (universities, as staff and educator) and for coffee chains, bookstores and hotels. I have found in every single setting people who got paid for doing very little, people who it seemed just could not get fired, massive waste, inefficiency, you name it.
I agree that unions are mixed bags, as are all other settings. The problem is not unions; the problem is people. Blaming "the government" or some union is just smoke and mirrors used by union and governmental opponents to distract everyone from their efforts to roll back the progress we have made in wages, workplace safety, benefits and the rest.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 21, 2006 12:29:31 AM
he's Bob Zimmerman
Really? Bob Zimmerman? Cool.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 21, 2006 2:14:21 AM
Hey, where did my link go?
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 21, 2006 2:19:37 AM
If management didn't negotiate a way to deal with people who read the paper half the time they're at work, that's management's responsibility.
Posted by: syfr | Nov 21, 2006 7:24:03 PM
That is insane. What you are saying is if some unforseen issue comes up that one should be fired for, manangement should be powerless because they didn't encompass every possibility.
When does the guy who is taking the risks and writing the checks have a say?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 24, 2006 11:39:30 AM
Why bother with people like Fred Barnes? They're liars and they always will be. He doesn't really believe it's the unions job to worry about competitiveness, it's the companies job. He knows that the vast majority of industrialized nations don't allow employers to fire employees at will, he just pretends it's insane. He knows that the guy who writes the checks doesn't take any risks, that he shoves that risk onto the employees. Fred just doesn't care about honesty because he's a scummy shill. People like Fred think the America should be in competition with shitholes like Thailand and mexico rather than real nations like Germany and Japan. Do you really trust someone like that?
People like Fred think they're problems are everyones problems. They aren't. Fred clearly doesn't care about workers, or about anyone making under 100k a year. Why should any of those people care about him?
Posted by: soullite | Dec 1, 2006 9:34:11 AM
sorry, Fred Jones not Barnes
though you shouldn't bother with Fred Barnes either. Hes also a lying prick and should just be ridiculed as such.
Posted by: soullite | Dec 1, 2006 9:35:11 AM
asdf,
*I think it's BS that it is hard to fire a sub-par teacher, and that teachers are allergic to efforts to measure their performance (so what if NCLB sucks; teachers could propose a reasonable alternative to measure teacher performance!).
Friends and family in the auto industry (I'm from Michigan) tell me stories of waiting 3 hours for an electrictian to change a light bulb (to protect union jobs), and guys making $90,000 per year (admittedly by working lots of overtime) while reading the paper half the time at work.*
It is not difficult to fire a "sub-par" teacher. It simply requires better than sub-par management.
Look into the 3 hour wait. I'd be willing to bet that occurs because of some management ruling such as not being staffed properly or some silly rule about having to use company transportation (perhaps that only runs every 3 hours). I doubt it is a "union jobs" issue, unless there is a normally well publicized slowdown.
Working overtime and still under six figures? Seems that management has bought the downsize and work 'em overtime meme that seems to be just now hitting the skids. It gives a boost to the reports for a few years, then will hit the company in the knees. Workers can work overtime for a short period of time, then, when they need the time off, they will find a way to take it. It mostly goes back to just plain poor management.
I would love to see the day when the workers can fire bad manaagement. Likely find a lot of wharton/harvard/yale morons on the street, where they belong.
Posted by: Sky-Ho | Dec 1, 2006 9:49:55 AM
