Anti-Union Ads

[Publius]

I agree with this completely. As a college drop out and waitress, I was approached by a regular customer who wanted me to come work for her. She saw that I was a hard-working, honest person and she brought me into her business, an industry I had no experience with and trained me for what is now my career. Throughout the past 13 years, I have been steadily working my way up in this business, past many lazy workers and college grads, because of my work ethic. I am now at the high end of my pay scale for my current position and ready to move on to the next level within the next several years. If someone wants more from their job or career than they are currently getting, it is well within their power to earn more for themselves. You don't need to pay thugs union dues to bully your boss into what you feel you deserve.

It sounds like you worked hard, but to be honest it sounds like you didn't go looking for your career, it came and found you. So consider yourself lucky that the right person came along and took a chance on you. And it doesn't sound like you are in a situation where a union would be beneficial to the work force. The upward mobility of low skilled workers is limited.

Just curious, what safety standards are management pressuring employees to ignore?

One of the common things that happen are putting pressure on sorters to not stop the belts when there is a dangerous overload of flow from unloaders. Much psychological pressure is put on workers to not report injuries.

BTW you can't lay the blame for Detroit's woes at the feet of the unions. The Big 3 agreed to those contracts. It is not the high wages so much, especially since the huge buyouts will effectively mean new workers will be paid half of what the old employees were getting. Rather the lack of foresight by the the Big 3 top brass in creating vehicles that people want. Toyota is doing great, albeit paying about 30% less in wages in the US, but negotiated through the same UAW.

[eriatarka]

This is unjust because low-skill workers should get what they deserve, not something better.

Assuming both sides are rational, whatever someone gets paid is what they deserve, regardless of the means it was obtained by (unless rights were violated). There's no intrinsic 'worth' a person has salary-wise outside of the negotiations process.

It seems like youre assuming a person has some kind of intrinsic worth (which coincidentally happens to be exactly what their employer wants to pay them), so you dislike unions because it means people can get paid more than this.

Imagine that people got angry that Microsoft were charging too much for their new operating system and started an organised boycott in order to get the price lowered. Would you say this is immoral because these people are trying to obtain the product for less than what its worth? (where its 'worth' is presumably the price that Microsoft would like to sell it at). This isnt really any different from what unions are doing.

Edited June 20, 2008 by eriatarka

[K-Mac]

The upward mobility of low skilled workers is limited.

No, it's not. I was a low skilled worker, a waitress, and my upward mobility was not and has not been limited. If they feel limited, it's because they limit themselves. They have just as much opportunity as anyone to get an education, work hard, invent something useful or whatever it takes to advance within the ranks of the workforce.

Also, we are not saying that workers cannot get together and petition their employer for higher pay, better benefits, etc. What we are saying is that the group shouldn't have the right to force the employer to comply with their demands. If the workers choose to get together and strike, that's their risk. The employer should also have the right to fire them and hire new employees. That's the risk they take by agreeing to work for someone under one situation, then holding the employer hostage unless he gives them another situation. Why did they go work there if they don't agree with their working conditions and compensation package?

I must say I resent your insinuation that I am somehow lucky because I didn't go looking for my career. I was a unskilled worker, and as such, I took a job that I felt I could be good at and make enough money to survive. (Which is far more than I can say for a lot of unskilled workers.) I was in the restaurant business for three years. During that time, I went from waiting tables, to bartending, to administrative to management shifts. A regular customer noticed my hard work. Perhaps I was "lucky" in that she liked to eat at my restaurant (??), but I have no doubt part of the reason they returned weekly was because of the excellent and personal customer service they received. Also, I experimented with other career paths (also as a result of someone noticing my efforts) but decided to come back to financial planning because not only do I have a passion for it, but I feel like I am able to do something fulfilling in helping our clients realize their retirement dreams.

So maybe when I was 19 I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do with my life (gee, how odd), but through hard, honest work and a positive attitude, I was able to work my way through that and arrive at something very fulfilling. I didn't feel lucky then, and I don't feel lucky now. I've earned every last penny I've ever been paid, and when I wanted to earn more, I did what it took to take my career to the next level. I came from a poor family, I have no degree and I had no skills, except the motivation to work hard with a smile on my face. If I can do it, any of the poor, pathetic, unskilled workers you mention in your posts can too. I don't feel sorry for them.

[Publius]

No, it's not. I was a low skilled worker, a waitress, and my upward mobility was not and has not been limited. If they feel limited, it's because they limit themselves. They have just as much opportunity as anyone to get an education, work hard, invent something useful or whatever it takes to advance within the ranks of the workforce.

Every individual has a potential opportunity to move up if they choose to work hard. I'm not denying that. The upward mobility of low skilled workers is limited though. This is true as long as they remain low skilled. What also is true is this: few consider the economy needs low skilled workers, millions and millions of them; without them the economy would collapse. Every inventor who creates a new product, he needs a factory of workers to make it. Every garment manufacturer needs a textile mill of workers to produce for him. Marketing companies need legions of phone operators. Retail stores need countless bodies to stock the shelves. Every low skilled worker cannot simply work hard and rise out of working a menial job, simply because there are not enough skilled jobs to go around for everyone, and those menial jobs are essential to the whole economy.

Also, we are not saying that workers cannot get together and petition their employer for higher pay, better benefits, etc. What we are saying is that the group shouldn't have the right to force the employer to comply with their demands. If the workers choose to get together and strike, that's their risk. The employer should also have the right to fire them and hire new employees. That's the risk they take by agreeing to work for someone under one situation, then holding the employer hostage unless he gives them another situation. Why did they go work there if they don't agree with their working conditions and compensation package?

I'm not familiar with the NLRA or other laws, but my understanding is that an employer can hire permanent replacements for striking workers. This rarely happens as it is usually not a good long term economic move to retrain an entire work force from scratch. So I don't think the employers are being forced to comply with demands.

I must say I resent your insinuation that I am somehow lucky because I didn't go looking for my career. I was a unskilled worker, and as such, I took a job that I felt I could be good at and make enough money to survive. (Which is far more than I can say for a lot of unskilled workers.) I was in the restaurant business for three years. During that time, I went from waiting tables, to bartending, to administrative to management shifts. A regular customer noticed my hard work. Perhaps I was "lucky" in that she liked to eat at my restaurant (??), but I have no doubt part of the reason they returned weekly was because of the excellent and personal customer service they received. Also, I experimented with other career paths (also as a result of someone noticing my efforts) but decided to come back to financial planning because not only do I have a passion for it, but I feel like I am able to do something fulfilling in helping our clients realize their retirement dreams.

So maybe when I was 19 I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do with my life (gee, how odd), but through hard, honest work and a positive attitude, I was able to work my way through that and arrive at something very fulfilling. I didn't feel lucky then, and I don't feel lucky now. I've earned every last penny I've ever been paid, and when I wanted to earn more, I did what it took to take my career to the next level. I came from a poor family, I have no degree and I had no skills, except the motivation to work hard with a smile on my face. If I can do it, any of the poor, pathetic, unskilled workers you mention in your posts can too. I don't feel sorry for them.

I didn't mean to denigrate your accomplishments. My intention was to point out that good fortune plays a part in many people's success. You will find many if not most successful entrepreneurs will readily admit this. You have a better chance of getting luck in your favor by working hard, but many many people work hard their entire lives and don't get an opportunity such as you were presented with. Ask yourself, what would you be doing today if that person hadn't crossed your path?

Also I don't see people who are working unskilled jobs as pathetic, as you said. A vibrant economy, upon which so many entrepreneurs and professionals depend to make money, is nonexistent without them.

[D'kian]

This is unjust because low-skill workers should get what they deserve, not something better.

Have you considered it may be convenient for an employer to bargain with his employees collectively rather than individually?

Our family company never employed more than 60 people at its height. We had a collective contract for the factory floor workers, and negotiated individual deals only with the more valuable ones (fabric cutters and the head seamstress), because that was easier and more effective for us.

As for deserved pay, the bulk of salaries went to the seamstresses. We paid each a weekly minimum, plus an extra amount depending on how many garments they assembled per week. So those who worked harder or better got more money.

Oh, the collective contract had salary tiers for each post. A seamstress (skilled) earned more than a janitor (unskilled). New hires came aboard with probationary contracts; that is, they could be fired easier than long-time employees, and for some posts they didn't make as much money as their colleagues until they proved they could do the work required.

Some things, like the punctuality bonus (given to employees who miss less than three days of work per year) were awarded equally to all employees who qualified regardless of position.

The company I work for now employs over 500 employees. Dealing with each one individually would be too time consuming and inefficient.

[Zip]

I don't think the complaint is against collective bargaining per se but against coercive collective bargaining practices.

Union: Pay us this or we will strike, when we strike we will intimidate and harass anyone who crosses the picket line, and... the government may not permit you to fire us.

[softwareNerd]

... few consider the economy needs low skilled workers, millions and millions of them; without them the economy would collapse.

Considered in a static "point in time" sense, an economy "needs" any large group of workers, at any level.

However, that is mainly because the economy has accommodated the people it has. In a more long-term sense, this is false. There would have been a time when people would have claimed that the economy needed millions of serfs, when what it really need was a few more scientists and engineers to make serfs redundant. The U.S. economy does not employ anywhere near the capital investment and automation that is already technologically feasible. The current constraint to moving many million people out of lower income level in today's U.S. economy is not the technology, but the capability of the people in those groups. If more of them got whatever skills were required to move up the salary ladder, it would raise wages below them and would increase the need for automation at levels below them.

In the U.S., if immigration were legal, there would be even less of an issue, because millions all over the world stand ready to take the lowest-paying jobs. As for the low-skilled in the third world, their economies definitely do not "need' those many numbers in any long-term sense.

[gags]

BTW you can't lay the blame for Detroit's woes at the feet of the unions. The Big 3 agreed to those contracts. It is not the high wages so much, especially since the huge buyouts will effectively mean new workers will be paid half of what the old employees were getting. Rather the lack of foresight by the the Big 3 top brass in creating vehicles that people want. Toyota is doing great, albeit paying about 30% less in wages in the US, but negotiated through the same UAW.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the failures of the US auto industry. I would never argue that management didn't have a hand in creating the problems that now confront GM, Ford & Chrysler. However, the fact remains that union wage demands drained capital from the US companies and made it more difficult for them to spend the huge amounts required for product development. Also, the UAW's wage and benefit demands have made it so that the Japanese and other foreign manufacturers are able to put their vehicles in show-rooms with an average cost advantage in the range of $3,000 over a domestic producer. Did management give in to the demands of the UAW? Sure they did, the same way a scared shop owner gives in to the demands for protection money from a gang of local thugs.

[softwareNerd]

Did management give in to the demands of the UAW? Sure they did, the same way a scared shop owner gives in to the demands for protection money from a gang of local thugs.

Also, since the UAW was at all three of the "big three" management thought they would be fine since the hands of all their competitors were equally tied. Of course, this is short-term thinking, because there is no industry so big that someone cannot set up a competing firm. Any local fourth company would have probably run in to the unions, if not on the assembly-line, then at its suppliers. So, it would have taken more than capital. The unions thus become a "barrier to entry" to further capital trying to get into the industry.

In such a case, a brand new competitor usually suceeds by somehow side-stepping the current system. Wal-mart did that in retail: it came up by establishing itself outside the main urban centers, where unions are not the norm, and by the time the competition started noticing, Wal-Mart had clout of its own. The same tale can be seen with Nucor. The unions throttled the U.S. steel industry, and Nucor broke through because it focused on a market that required small-footprint technology and because it sought out sites in rural southern towns where people wanted work and unionism was not yet the norm.

The same in the auto-industry. The competition came as a "side step", in the form of imports.

It is also true that U.S. auto-quality was really poor in the 1970's. However, the fact is that Japanese goods were once considered cheap too. Management has to blame for quality, but so does the union. In short, the basic structure of the industry -- with unionism as a central aspect -- provided little incentive for great work, and it also attracted employees (and managers) who saw the company as a job that they would have forever. Unionism is an important factor that drained the dynamism from the industry, from workers and managers alike.

Even today, it is the unions that are holding the big-three back. Though severely weakened, their philosophy is not yet wiped out.

Edited June 21, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Publius]

Union: Pay us this or we will strike, when we strike we will intimidate and harass anyone who crosses the picket line, and... the government may not permit you to fire us.

I don't know that this is the case. I haven't read the law but I think companies can permanently replace striking workers, which is pretty much the same as firing them.

[Publius]

Considered in a static "point in time" sense, an economy "needs" any large group of workers, at any level.

However, that is mainly because the economy has accommodated the people it has. In a more long-term sense, this is false. There would have been a time when people would have claimed that the economy needed millions of serfs, when what it really need was a few more scientists and engineers to make serfs redundant. The U.S. economy does not employ anywhere near the capital investment and automation that is already technologically feasible. The current constraint to moving many million people out of lower income level in today's U.S. economy is not the technology, but the capability of the people in those groups. If more of them got whatever skills were required to move up the salary ladder, it would raise wages below them and would increase the need for automation at levels below them.

In the U.S., if immigration were legal, there would be even less of an issue, because millions all over the world stand ready to take the lowest-paying jobs. As for the low-skilled in the third world, their economies definitely do not "need' those many numbers in any long-term sense.

I'm having a hard time following your thoughts here. Are you suggesting that the economy is only accommodating restaurant workers, retail workers, most factory workers, farm workers, etc? The technology for automating all low skilled jobs is not developed enough yet to do away with low skilled workers, not for a long time. Retail stores can not be set so as to not need stockers and other store staff. Trucks of merchandise can not drive themselves to their destinations. Crops such as coffee, apples, tomatoes, etc need humans to pick them. Restaurants need humans to prepare food, serve dishes, clean up, etc.

Your last thoughts are a little disjointed and perhaps you can clarify your meaning.

[softwareNerd]

Publius, If 10% the low-skilled workers in the U.S. could move into other jobs, there are enough technological ways to allow accomodate that at pretty short notice. Over the longer run, even more can be done. Please do not point to current techniques of harvesting apples and coffee. A few decades ago people would have said the same for wheat. To think that way is a failure of imagination. Many things in the U.S. are far more automated than in some third-world countries, and people there who have never seen the west would not be able to imagine such automation. yet, if you compare automation in the U.S. with that in Japan, the U.S. still lags. There are so many tasks that people consider as requiring detail skill -- e.g. make nice hot tacos -- but, which have been automated. Further, it is n ot simply automation, but the application of knowledge in general. People are capable of doing all sorts, including engineering plants to be more easily harvested. The driver has to be economic. The fewer low skilled folk available, the more that knowledge will be applied to do things a different way.

Finally, in the shorter term, to the extent that the economy cannot accomodate them, it will end up raising the wages for those unskilled jobs.

[Publius]

Publius, If 10% the low-skilled workers in the U.S. could move into other jobs, there are enough technological ways to allow accomodate that at pretty short notice. Over the longer run, even more can be done. Please do not point to current techniques of harvesting apples and coffee. A few decades ago people would have said the same for wheat. To think that way is a failure of imagination.

What I am talking about is only relevant in the short term anyway. We live in the world we live in, not what we want it to be. And the short term reality is there are only so many people who are going to move out of low skilled jobs because opportunities are limited. As the economic engine churns, more opportunities become available to low skilled workers. But this is a long slow process moving at a glacial pace. Surely the equation changes if we let in more waves of immigrants.

So that comes back around to the main point. Unions are important because working hard is not going to get everyone promoted.

Many things in the U.S. are far more automated than in some third-world countries, and people there who have never seen the west would not be able to imagine such automation. yet, if you compare automation in the U.S. with that in Japan, the U.S. still lags. There are so many tasks that people consider as requiring detail skill -- e.g. make nice hot tacos -- but, which have been automated. Further, it is n ot simply automation, but the application of knowledge in general. People are capable of doing all sorts, including engineering plants to be more easily harvested. The driver has to be economic. The fewer low skilled folk available, the more that knowledge will be applied to do things a different way.

Finally, in the shorter term, to the extent that the economy cannot accomodate them, it will end up raising the wages for those unskilled jobs.

I think you are counting your chickens before they hatch. You are extrapolating a hypothetical template of innovation and free market freedom into the uncertain future. Never bank on technology that isn't there yet, just because you feel that given the right circumstances and time, innovations will crop up to solve all our problems. Technology advances in unpredictable ways, and at an unpredictable pace. Of course the driving force is economic. I don't see a shortage of unskilled workers on the horizon any time soon, though.

BTW I still prefer my tacos made by hand, preferably a clean one

[fletch]

Unions are important because working hard is not going to get everyone promoted.

I would have bet no one could use the words "union" and "working hard" in the same sentence. Looks like I owe you a Coke.

[JMeganSnow]

Why does "everyone" deserve to be promoted? Hard work alone doesn't do you a whole lot of good. If you're simply doing physical labor, you're *never going to get ahead* because the *value* of your work is created by people who think and make machines that increase your productivity a hundredfold. In a society where you can promote yourself through an endless variety of means by using your brains a bit, who needs a union?

If you want your employer to recognize your skill, don't leave them any choice. If they won't do it, go somewhere else.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

Why does "everyone" deserve to be promoted? Hard work alone doesn't do you a whole lot of good. If you're simply doing physical labor, you're *never going to get ahead* because the *value* of your work is created by people who think and make machines that increase your productivity a hundredfold. In a society where you can promote yourself through an endless variety of means by using your brains a bit, who needs a union?

If you want your employer to recognize your skill, don't leave them any choice. If they won't do it, go somewhere else.

Unless you are contemplating total automation, note that a non-automatic machine will not operate itself. If must be deployed by people and operated by people who can operate it correctly. The value of labor is determined by the capital goods that multiply the effectiveness of labor -and- the skill that laborers bring to the machines. A machine can be operated well or it can be operated badly. The value created is a joint effort. It is a combination of the inventive wit of machine designers and the operating skill of laborers who focus their energy to use the machines to produce goods that people will buy. In addition to the laborers who use machines invented by clever folk, there is the matter of management, scheduling, materials acquisition, inspection, storage and transport. Goods do not get from machine to end user without a lot of intermediate effort.

It is not an either/or thing. It is a both/and thing.

ruveyn

Edited June 22, 2008 by ruveyn ben yosef

[Marc K.]

In addition to the laborers who use machines invented by clever folk, there is the matter of management, scheduling, materials acquisition, inspection, storage and transport. Goods do not get from machine to end user without a lot of intermediate effort.

Now, remind yourself; who is dependent upon whom. Is an inventor dependent upon all of these particular people or are all of them dependent upon him?

It is not an either/or thing.

I'm sorry but it is an either/or thing. Either there is something to produce or the laborers don't have a job.

[Marc K.]

Assuming both sides are rational,

Yes, let's start here. A rational man strives to be just, neither seeking nor granting the unearned. A rational employee works hard and expects to be rewarded for his effort. A rational employer seeks to reward those who have earned it. If someone works hard and is good at what they do, they deserve to be paid better than someone who is a loafer and bad at their job.

The virtues I'm espousing are Justice and Productivity. Do you disagree with these principles?

If the question is: is it possible to negotiate collectively in a rational manner? I would say: it is possible -- please read D'kian's post #30.

But one must remember to be very careful when doing so as this pit is loaded with quicksand, the reminder is the stench in the air, the stench of collectivism inherent in collective bargaining.

It seems like youre assuming a person has some kind of intrinsic worth [emphasis added]

You've used a couple of dirty words there. First, I try hard never to assume. And second, I have said that someone's pay should be related to how hard they work, which seems to contraindicate intrinsic value.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

Now, remind yourself; who is dependent upon whom. Is an inventor dependent upon all of these particular people or are all of them dependent upon him?

I'm sorry but it is an either/or thing. Either there is something to produce or the laborers don't have a job.

What will an inventor gain if there is no one to use his machines? Would Nathaniel Taggart have run trains if they ran empty? Inventors do not invent, just to invent. They invent for their inventions to be used productively. Producers do not just produce. They produce for trade. That means there are others out there. Review Rand's Pyramid. It is true that inventors only get a fraction of the value they create, but without the bottom, their inventions would have little or no value. There have to be those who can -use- the inventions well and productively to make stuff. And there have to be productive folk who use the reward of their labors to buy the stuff that the machines produce. There is no commerce on a desert island.

Commerce is based on both production -and- trade. It is based on the specialization of labor. There are multi way interactions going on throughout the process.

Like I said, it is both/and.

ruveyn

[DavidOdden]

Commerce is based on both production -and- trade. It is based on the specialization of labor.

More correctly, it is based on a man first identifying a fact about a thing, then identifying a relationship between the thing and other people (this is where commerce is distinguished from simple subsistence). Ultimately the things must be produced, but that is much later in the development of commerce. Every "and" is composed by independently having two things to conjoin, and brute labor without prior application of the mind of the inventor won't even get you a cup of coffee.

[Marc K.]

The above comment implies that people should never look to gain leverage to negotiate better deals. This runs counter to any business philosophy that I am familiar with. Companies are always looking to get leverage in negotiations with other companies to get "something better", not "what they deserve."

If we are talking about rational employees and rational employers, then I can think of no valid "leverage" either could use when negotiating unless you consider hard work "leverage". Remember: trade is the renunciation of force.

In a low skilled job situation, working hard is a virtue but is not going to get you much leverage at the negotiation table, because you are still a low skilled worker and easily replaceable. You must rely on the good graces of your employer.

If you don't like your situation, then you should stop being a low skilled worker. Rely on yourself and work hard to improve your situation. (And as JMeganSnow indicated: this means using your mind to advance beyond just the next pay level. It means: learning a business and how to improve it).

[Marc K.]

Producers do not just produce. They produce for trade. That means there are others out there. [...] And there have to be productive folk who use the reward of their labors to buy the stuff that the machines produce. There is no commerce on a desert island.

But now you are talking about production and trade, I thought we were talking about employers and employees.

So I ask you again to recall "Atlas Shrugged" and tell me: who is dependent upon whom?

As I said: it is an either/or thing.

[D'kian]

I don't think the complaint is against collective bargaining per se but against coercive collective bargaining practices.

Union: Pay us this or we will strike, when we strike we will intimidate and harass anyone who crosses the picket line, and... the government may not permit you to fire us.

A strike is a rational means of pressuring an employer. You shut down his production indefinitely.

Now, suppose there were no laws against firing strikers. Few employers would fire all the labor force, or even a portion of it. Unless your business hires only unskilled workers who don't need any sort of experience, you'll have a hard time hiring enough people to replace all the strikers.

Of course it would depend on market conditions. If unemployment is high, you could conceivably find enough skilled replacements for many fields. If unemployemnt is low, you'll have a hard time even filling vacancies, never mind replacing all your employees (hell, I recall us hanging on to mediocre employees for months because we couldn't find anyone better to replace them). So even without laws protecting the strikers' jobs, strikes would still exist.

A strike can kill a company. It's happened. When you shut down you not only loose income, you loose customers. they will go to your competitors to get what they need. Some may come back, some won't. You may loose enough market sahre to have to downsize, or to close down altogether, and that won't benefit the striking workers one bit. the risks of striking go beyond temporary loss of pay or, under better laws, being fired and replaced.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

But now you are talking about production and trade, I thought we were talking about employers and employees.

So I ask you again to recall "Atlas Shrugged" and tell me: who is dependent upon whom?

As I said: it is an either/or thing.

Nat Taggart needed passengers for his railway. The passengers needed Nat Taggart for transportation. Both/And.

As to employers and employees, ask how much would a businessman earn if he could not get anyone to work for him. All he could do is sell the labor of his own hands. Employees are a force multiplier (assuming they are competent) for their employer.

How much steel or Reardon Metal would HR have made if no one worked in his plants?

Both/And.

ruveyn

[DavidOdden]

How much steel or Reardon Metal would HR have made if no one worked in his plants?

How many manual laborers created Rearden metal in the first place. With automation, how many manual laborers are required to produce the metal? When Q depends logically on P, it's an error to focus on the end-state that both P and Q are present. P is essential, Q is secondary.