Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How can a union really raise wages without force?

Rate this topic


Dentist85

Recommended Posts

You make a good point David. I'll retract my earlier "problem" statement, which was meant more along the lines of the idea that unions shouldn't be prohibited by government.

Perhaps I should add that in my experience, unions are counterproductive for employees who excel at their jobs. If you're good at what you do, you can usually negotiate a better pay and benefit package for yourself than what the union makes available to everyone. Better employees also tend to advance faster in non-union shops.

Hey! I guess I do have several problems with them. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The good news is that unions have been in decline in the U.S. for a while, and the trend does not show any sign of changing. Some recent news:

  • Northwest recently had a strike. Unlike previous strikes, the effects are minimal. Their delays are up (only 75% of flights are 'on-time'). However, they've prepared well for this as this article explains. Also, the discussion was not about how much pay should be raised, but about how much it should be cut.
  • GM recently did a deal with its union that cuts back on health benefits and post-retirement health benefits, as this article explains.
  • The AFL-CIO had a schism, and has broken in two
  • At least one state has enacted legislation where union contributions cannot be used for political purposes, and other states may follow

As such, it isn't great to hear about pay cuts and about retired people being denied benefits they thought they were getting. On the other hand, these are logical results to illogical past behavior by both employers and employees.

Today it appears that the only way the U.S. Union movement could get fresh impetus would be to unionize a huge corporationn that is currently non-union. The main target for the unions is Wal*Mart. Fortunately, they have shown a strong determination to remain non-union. Earlier this year, they closed a store in Canada when it seemed that it might be unionized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot, as a mere manager, unplug a computer, move a desk, or a chair. I cannot even think about touching a bolt or screw. I can't swiffer off a goddamn desk. Prohibited from cleaning anything, fixing anything. Nope, because the union(s) demand that their workers be entitled to such tasks (but of course, not a damn thing besides. It's not in their contracts you know).

What are you actually allowed to do?

Your situation sounds extremely frustrating, and I don't know how long I could stand working under such conditions.

The major unions in my area are the longshoreman type. It is well known by most of the "longies" that speaking out against the union could easily result in broken knee caps or perhaps worse. Overall, it's a very grim situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I work in a 'unionised' business in the UK and it definitely is an experience :lol:

I work hard, trying to improve efficiency and to motivate others. I volunteer to help managers do their jobs when we are short-staffed and generally make things run more smoothly. yet for all that I get less money than those who've been in the job for 10 years and sit on their back-sides all day, as opposed to my 6 years, as all wages are set by union rules. There is no leeway for the company to reward individuals by merit, unfortunately :P

I suppose I could just be equally as lazy and just do enough to get paid at the end of the month-which is the mentality that is engendered in union-membership (even in non closed-shop businesses)but I don't like to do that. Ah well, I suppose I'll learn or leave eventually :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Los Angeles the Longshoremen's unions sit on their ass all day taking 2 hour coffee breaks and working as inefficiently as they wish. According to my father, hundreds of truck drivers have to wait countless hours waiting for them to do their job while thousands of cargo just sits on the docks. The way he describes them: most are bottom of the barrel people who wouldn't get hired at a normal company but who got in the union through family members or friends. Los Angeles would be more efficient and be able to grow more without them.

Edited by Dagny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know how one goes about finishing off a forum, but maybe this will, or better yet it will lead to further discussion: Unions are a disease, somewhat like a virus that corrupts good cells (workers) to malignancy. Observe the dock-workers, longshoremen, movers, et cetera. The unions are not only bad for the corporation with their (often unfeasible and therefore outrageous) demands, but they too often violate a basic tenet of Objectivist philosophy: the individual's right to his own property. I mean of course the employers' rights to pay as they see fit. Their rights to their own properties are too often trampled for the short-term gain of the unions. (I am surprised no one has yet mentioned the property of the employers; if someone has alluded to it, I am sorry for being too cursory in my reading.) Therefore, unions have to be tempered never to coerce by any means their employers because of not only the economic, but also the moral implications. Of course, some might say that this leaves unions toothless, but to them I say that lions have no rights to our necks.

Edited by The Lord Radburn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with unions isn't with the idea of people organizing to, say, keep better informed about advances in their field of work, or to request better wages or benefits . . . organizing is everyone's right. Where labor unions become evil is when you have government interference, because this means that either the employer or the union suddenly gains the ability to use force to secure their demands.

A mandatory union is just another type of socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I find this interesting, as a goverment worker. Apparently, as I understand it, the civilian military structure is unionized (at least in certain areas). The group that I work for in the Northeast has a bargaining unit. What I find interesting is that you don't have to be a member of the said union to be represented BY the union. Which, never really made any sense to me, but, oh well. I've found that there were certain things that the union achieved (workout times for mil-techs, leave time and such) and certain things that the union gets in the way of (job hiring, movement and purchases). For what it's worth, I don't see the benefits of the union work outweighing the negatives. But, then, I'm of the opinion that the military should be run like a military, and not like a civilian business.

On the other hand, my father-in-law is a master welder (and VERY good at his job) and being union has allowed him to work even during hard times and keep a competative rate. But, then, he's also one of the few hard-working ethical people in the system. Seriously, the guys a workaholic. He turned a pile of rusty metal into a beautiful 1929 Model "T" car in just over a year. And that was on his OWN time. I wish I had that kind of skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: How can a union really raise wages without force?.

By supplying a superior product. If a Worker's Union provides a better worker than it did yesterday then it can effectively bargain for better wages for its members without using a coercive force. Unfortunately, few unions provide an improved product.

And also, what are, if any, the benefits of a union (what value can a union actually provide), of course without initiating physical force?

I assume from the question that you are asking for the benefits of a Union in a society which does not initiate physical force. In such an economy their would be little demand for traditional unions, because there would be little demand for traditional employees.

To fully appreciate how this society would get work done, we must understand that many every day concepts we now use would no longer apply. In our modern societies government supplies a economic framework which we use to trade with each other, it defines what a job is, it (poorly) guides the education of a large portion of citizens, and it is responsible for slowing economic innovation and wealth creation.

Look at an enterprising family of four people. Pretend they live at the economic bottom with neighbors in the same boat. Dad loves to cook and mom is always getting requests for food. They turn their modest home into a takeout kitchen. The children chip in and soon business is booming. Their neighbors, not having a lot of cash, barter for fine cooking. Another patron teaches the kids. Someone comes in and cleans for mom. Is this last person a customer or an employee? The employee/customer/consultant lines blur when no definition is forced on society.

In a society where citizens are free to peacefully associate, innovate, and compete, we create wealth faster. Outsourcing, cheap foreign goods (no tariffs, no quotas), and more efficient production raise the quality of life of everyone. Demand for more skilled, better educated workers rises as disposable income rises. Like other prices, pay tends to decrease without some noticeable improvement in the product.

In such a free society terms like union, employer, and employee would change in substantially different and unknown ways as to become meaningless when compared to our definitions. Without a functioning crystal ball, we at a loss as to how we might apply those terms in that future society.

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed quote citiation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm extremely angry with the TWU union in NYC. How can a modern nation like ours accepts a cabal of Union leaders to hold hostage a city of more than 8 million people?

My solution for this would be to send the National Guard in, whoever would have the proper training, and take over the MTA. And within 6 months privatize it and sell it to the highest bidder. I can't imagine a private company permitting such behavior (unless government suppports the unions), or the Unions demanding such cushy benefits without the state treasury to back it up.

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Nate, the repeal of a single federal labor law would go a long ways toward resolving this situation.

Under Federal labor laws, a private business has a right to hire replacement workers during a strike, assuming it can find people willing to cross a picket line. However, the business may not fire the strikers -- and when the union ends the strike, the business must return the strikers to their jobs and fire the replacement workers. Fair, right?

(Unions have been working for decades to outlaw even this limited right to hire temporary replacement workers; fortunately, they have not succeeded.)

The law that forces businesses to return strikers to their jobs is the root of “union power”, i.e. it is the primary form in which the union uses government to initiate force against the employer. That law should be repealed. This would allow businesses to fire the strikers and hire permanent replacement workers, which would greatly reduce the incentive to strike.

In a classic example of one bad law becoming an excuse for more bad laws, states, since they cannot fire strikers, have simply passed additional laws outlawing strikers; they simply make it illegal for public employees to go on strike. New York State has such a law, called the Taylor law, which includes stiff penalties for public employees that strike. So, now we have the obscene spectacle of the state telling public employees that they must return to their jobs by law -- they don‘t have the right not to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, my father-in-law is a master welder (and VERY good at his job) and being union has allowed him to work even during hard times and keep a competative rate.
How has union membership "allowed" him to keep working at a "competitive rate" during hard times?

The only people I've ever seen benefit from union membership during "hard times" are older employees who avoid a layoff because of union-enforced rules that require all cutbacks to be done in order of seniority, with the least senior people going first. In these cases, union membership also "allows" a younger employee to lose his job during "hard times".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That comment reminded me of NUCOR steel. NUCOR was a non-unionized company that would not lay off workers when times were bad. Instead they would do things like asking all employees to work for 4 days a week, with a proportionate reduction in pay. If the bad times are truly temporary, this can make sense if combined with some lay-offs.

I wonder if a private unemployment insurance offering could be viable product. Unlike other insurance, there might be so much "self-selection" by people who can't hold a job that the product may not be viable. I think a sophisticated financial market would have better ways to allow an employee to handle the genuine risks.

As for unions raising wages, all one has to do is look at the American auto industry. Unions did raise wages-rates there. Sometimes the "short term" is not that short; it can last years. My guess is that if the UAW were to miraculously disappear, Detroit would be an automotive boomtown. Not only would the "big three" be better off, but Toyota and the others would be setting up shop in the Detroit area.

The idea that unions raise wages is the other side of the idea that price-controls keep things cheap. Unions make the employment of union-workers less profitable just as price controls make the production of the controlled item less profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for unions raising wages, all one has to do is look at the American auto industry. Unions did raise wages-rates there. Sometimes the "short term" is not that short; it can last years. My guess is that if the UAW were to miraculously disappear, Detroit would be an automotive boomtown. Not only would the "big three" be better off, but Toyota and the others would be setting up shop in the Detroit area.

What you say about the UAW is likely true. However, much of the blame for the current plight of the domestic auto industry rests on the shoulders of management. The execs at GM, DCX and Ford have buckled to union demands for years, thinking that it's cheaper to pay off the union than to endure a strike. Now GM and Ford have a $2,500 per car cost disadvantage compared to the foreign makers. Unfortunately both GM and Ford may need to go bankrupt to change their cost structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfectly true. Management is just as much to blame as the unions. A little blame can go to the government for guaranteeing pensions and for generally being supportive of the whole legal framework that kept the charade up longer than it ought to have lasted.

Recently, Wagoner (for other readers, he's the GM CEO) wrote an Op-Ed asking for a level-playing field. I blogged about it; won't repeat it all here, but in summary Wagoner is asking: who was I to know? and complaining that everyone was cheering when management was taking short-sighted actions, so why complain about them now, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can a union really raise wages without force?

By increasing the elasticity of the supply of labor, that is:

By helping workers to find better jobs. By training them so that they are more productive and worthy of being promoted.

It could also help them by assisting them in: acquiring insurance or finding good investments or presenting grievances to management.

My impression is that most unions do not do these things (except the grievances). If anything they do the opposite.

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed quotation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nerd, I read your blog on Wagoner and GM. Excellent!

By the way, I recall during the Hillary Clinton health care fiasco that the Big 3 were some of the most enthusiastic corporate supporters of a national health care system. They clearly wanted the American people to bail them out of the years and years of bad deals they had struck with the United Auto Workers. Shameful, IMO.

Edited by gags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...