Why Unions Are Effective
- Thread starter PITbull
- Start date
After reading the AFL-CIO briefing memo, I decided to do some research. Following are some of the facts and opinions of organizations and people who are non-partisian when viewing the roles of unions:
In 2002, 13.2 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down
from 13.4 percent (as revised) in 2001, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of persons belonging to a
union fell by 280,000 over the year to 16.1 million in 2002. The union mem-
bership rate has steadily declined from a high of 20.1 percent in 1983, the
first year for which comparable union data are available.
The following thoughts were written by Robert Hunter. He is the former director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland-based nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to advancing free market solutions to Michigan public policy problems:
In recent years, the federal government has deregulated heavily unionized industries including the trucking, railroad, and airline industries. Deregulation has brought greater competition in this industries not only domestically but also from abroad. No longer is the U. S. free from global competitive pressures, as many argue it was in the years following World War II. Economic globalization has resulted in large-scale layoffs and growing economic insecurity for workers, particularly in these historically unionized industries. This in turn has limited union efforts to raise their members' wages and benefits. For example, trucking deregulation hit the Teamsters union hard because competition meant that trucking firms could no longer keep their prices high enough to support the Teamsters' wage premiums. The new competitive labor market freed nonunion truckers from the roadblocks they faced in getting jobs. In the seven years since trucking deregulation began in earnest, the share of truckers who belonged to unions fell by more than half, to 28 percent.
Officials in the organized labor movement consistently state that the two greatest causes for the continuing decline in union membership are the anti-union attitudes of employers and weaknesses in the National Labor Relations Act that make employee organizing difficult and provide ineffective remedies for employer labor law violations. Close scrutiny reveals, however, that the principal cause of labor union decline is not so much employer attitudes or the country's labor laws, but rather a lack of worker support for unions.
Moreover, unions consistently lose more than half of all decertification elections—the elections in which employees vote to determine whether they wish their existing union to continue representing them.
Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist at the US Department of Labor wrote,
"For more than a century now, labor unions have been celebrated in folk songs and popular myth as fearless champions of the downtrodden working man, while "the bosses" are depicted as coldhearted exploiters of employees. But from the standpoint of economists—including many who are avowedly pro-union—unions are simply cartels that raise wages above competitive levels by capturing monopolies over who companies can hire and what they must pay.
Many unions have won higher wages and better working conditions for their members. In doing so, however, they have reduced the number of jobs available. That second effect is because of the basic law of demand: if unions successfully raise the price of labor, employers will purchase less of it. Thus, unions are the major anticompetitive force in labor markets. Their gains come at the expense of consumers, nonunion workers, the jobless, and owners of corporations."
Lindy asks, "What does all this mean?" Yes, unions do raise wages and protect benfits. However, there is a price to pay. When these wages/benefits become too expensive, companies do one of three things: a) look for cheaper labor(China/Mexico), B) reduce the work force, c) shut down (steel mills in Pa. and textile mills in the Carolinas).
In our industry, deregulation has been the instigator of significant change. Most recently, two non-union airlines have become the darlings of Wall Street: Air Tran and Jet Blue. I know, Southwest is unionized and successful. However, chinks in the armor of Southwest are beginning to develop.
So, as we celebrate Labor Day, the one thing I want most from my union is for them to realize the changes taking place in the market place. Develop and employ
new stratagies that enhance the competive nature of the Company. The old style negotiating tactics of Samuel Gompers and Jimmy Hoffa(stomping out of a negotiating session) are not relavent in today's environment.
Happy Holiday to all..Lindy
In 2002, 13.2 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down
from 13.4 percent (as revised) in 2001, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of persons belonging to a
union fell by 280,000 over the year to 16.1 million in 2002. The union mem-
bership rate has steadily declined from a high of 20.1 percent in 1983, the
first year for which comparable union data are available.
The following thoughts were written by Robert Hunter. He is the former director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland-based nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to advancing free market solutions to Michigan public policy problems:
In recent years, the federal government has deregulated heavily unionized industries including the trucking, railroad, and airline industries. Deregulation has brought greater competition in this industries not only domestically but also from abroad. No longer is the U. S. free from global competitive pressures, as many argue it was in the years following World War II. Economic globalization has resulted in large-scale layoffs and growing economic insecurity for workers, particularly in these historically unionized industries. This in turn has limited union efforts to raise their members' wages and benefits. For example, trucking deregulation hit the Teamsters union hard because competition meant that trucking firms could no longer keep their prices high enough to support the Teamsters' wage premiums. The new competitive labor market freed nonunion truckers from the roadblocks they faced in getting jobs. In the seven years since trucking deregulation began in earnest, the share of truckers who belonged to unions fell by more than half, to 28 percent.
Officials in the organized labor movement consistently state that the two greatest causes for the continuing decline in union membership are the anti-union attitudes of employers and weaknesses in the National Labor Relations Act that make employee organizing difficult and provide ineffective remedies for employer labor law violations. Close scrutiny reveals, however, that the principal cause of labor union decline is not so much employer attitudes or the country's labor laws, but rather a lack of worker support for unions.
Moreover, unions consistently lose more than half of all decertification elections—the elections in which employees vote to determine whether they wish their existing union to continue representing them.
Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist at the US Department of Labor wrote,
"For more than a century now, labor unions have been celebrated in folk songs and popular myth as fearless champions of the downtrodden working man, while "the bosses" are depicted as coldhearted exploiters of employees. But from the standpoint of economists—including many who are avowedly pro-union—unions are simply cartels that raise wages above competitive levels by capturing monopolies over who companies can hire and what they must pay.
Many unions have won higher wages and better working conditions for their members. In doing so, however, they have reduced the number of jobs available. That second effect is because of the basic law of demand: if unions successfully raise the price of labor, employers will purchase less of it. Thus, unions are the major anticompetitive force in labor markets. Their gains come at the expense of consumers, nonunion workers, the jobless, and owners of corporations."
Lindy asks, "What does all this mean?" Yes, unions do raise wages and protect benfits. However, there is a price to pay. When these wages/benefits become too expensive, companies do one of three things: a) look for cheaper labor(China/Mexico), B) reduce the work force, c) shut down (steel mills in Pa. and textile mills in the Carolinas).
In our industry, deregulation has been the instigator of significant change. Most recently, two non-union airlines have become the darlings of Wall Street: Air Tran and Jet Blue. I know, Southwest is unionized and successful. However, chinks in the armor of Southwest are beginning to develop.
So, as we celebrate Labor Day, the one thing I want most from my union is for them to realize the changes taking place in the market place. Develop and employ
new stratagies that enhance the competive nature of the Company. The old style negotiating tactics of Samuel Gompers and Jimmy Hoffa(stomping out of a negotiating session) are not relavent in today's environment.
Happy Holiday to all..Lindy
airlineorphan
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 380
- 0
Lindy,
The biggest problem with unions these days is that they DO spend too much time worrying about how they can make their individual company competitive.
In the acceptance of the logic of competitiveness, unions and their members invariably do help their individual company cut labor costs and in so doing beggar themselves.
But it doesn't stop there. In sacrificing themselves at the altar of competitiveness, they set off a chain of events that generally leads to the beggaring of employees at the competition.
And as the concessions spread through an industry, the unit cost savings achieved by cutting labor costs soon evaporate, defeating the purpose of the original sacrifice.
It is true that many workers are unhappy with their unions, and almost everytime I hear a complaint (at least from a worker) about the union it is because a worker perceives their union as not fighting hard enough, not because the union isn't scrambling to give away the store in the name of competitiveness.
I believe it is true that most union leadership does not fight hard enough and has instead adopted the self-destructive allegiance to corporate competitiveness. This is something that needs to change in the labor movement. Of course, as my "avatar" suggests, my response is not to whine about it, but to organize to strengthen the fighting spirit of my union.
And that is one of the reasons I like the AFA presidents in PIT and PHL so much: They have the fighting spirit and the sense of solidarity that is needed so desperately in today's workplace!
BTW, your historical sense of Gompers is a bit off. He was one of the leaders who led the labor movement astray towards narrow allegiance to company competitiveness and internal union bureaucracy and away from worker solidarity and the democratic spirit from which true union power derives. And Hoffa, well he forgot his early lessons about worker solidarity and rank and file democracy from the Minneapolis Truckers Strike of 1934 and tried the topdown strongman approach. This led to shortcuts that put the leadership of the Teamsters in bed with management (with a brief hiatus when reform candidates took over the union in the 90's).
The labor movement has plenty of problems today, but failure to promote competitiveness is not one of them. An overabundance of militance is not one of the problems today either--to the contrary!
One of the cores goals of the labor movement is to take labor out of the competitiveness racket. What I want from my union today is for us to return to our core values of solidarity, democracy and an understanding that "an injury to one is an injury to all."
In solidarity,
-Airlineorphan
P.S. The fine free market fundamentalists at the Mackinac also claim that the blackout had nothing to do with the Rube-Goldberg deregulation of our energy system and argue a number of other fairly extreme positions. They are entitled to their one-sided views (as am I
), but there are quite a few other studies of the decline of union membership that contradict Mr. Robert P. Hunter's unsubstantiated opinions.
The biggest problem with unions these days is that they DO spend too much time worrying about how they can make their individual company competitive.
In the acceptance of the logic of competitiveness, unions and their members invariably do help their individual company cut labor costs and in so doing beggar themselves.
But it doesn't stop there. In sacrificing themselves at the altar of competitiveness, they set off a chain of events that generally leads to the beggaring of employees at the competition.
And as the concessions spread through an industry, the unit cost savings achieved by cutting labor costs soon evaporate, defeating the purpose of the original sacrifice.
It is true that many workers are unhappy with their unions, and almost everytime I hear a complaint (at least from a worker) about the union it is because a worker perceives their union as not fighting hard enough, not because the union isn't scrambling to give away the store in the name of competitiveness.
I believe it is true that most union leadership does not fight hard enough and has instead adopted the self-destructive allegiance to corporate competitiveness. This is something that needs to change in the labor movement. Of course, as my "avatar" suggests, my response is not to whine about it, but to organize to strengthen the fighting spirit of my union.
And that is one of the reasons I like the AFA presidents in PIT and PHL so much: They have the fighting spirit and the sense of solidarity that is needed so desperately in today's workplace!
BTW, your historical sense of Gompers is a bit off. He was one of the leaders who led the labor movement astray towards narrow allegiance to company competitiveness and internal union bureaucracy and away from worker solidarity and the democratic spirit from which true union power derives. And Hoffa, well he forgot his early lessons about worker solidarity and rank and file democracy from the Minneapolis Truckers Strike of 1934 and tried the topdown strongman approach. This led to shortcuts that put the leadership of the Teamsters in bed with management (with a brief hiatus when reform candidates took over the union in the 90's).
The labor movement has plenty of problems today, but failure to promote competitiveness is not one of them. An overabundance of militance is not one of the problems today either--to the contrary!
One of the cores goals of the labor movement is to take labor out of the competitiveness racket. What I want from my union today is for us to return to our core values of solidarity, democracy and an understanding that "an injury to one is an injury to all."
In solidarity,
-Airlineorphan
P.S. The fine free market fundamentalists at the Mackinac also claim that the blackout had nothing to do with the Rube-Goldberg deregulation of our energy system and argue a number of other fairly extreme positions. They are entitled to their one-sided views (as am I
), but there are quite a few other studies of the decline of union membership that contradict Mr. Robert P. Hunter's unsubstantiated opinions.
OP
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #20
"Close scrutiny reveals, however, that the principal cause of labor union decline is not so much employer attitudes or the country's labor laws, but rather a lack of worker support for unions".
Says whom? The above implies that most workers don't want a union. Think about this .... Could it be fear of reprisal from the employer? Think that doesn't happen? Happened to me when I unionized a local nursing home in Pittsburgh in 1996. I was fired for it and brought these charges to the National Labor Relations Board. An experience I will never forget. Health Care Service Wokers International 1199P protected me fiercely through the entire process. The nursing home ended up having to reinstate me and pay me back wages of 14 months . During that time, I was at the table negotiating the RN first contract ever.
Airlineorphan,
Bravo to you and on this Labor Day.
You made the point quite eloquently, and expressed the other side of the issue regarding the causes of the decrease in unionization of workers. I am sure you left some "speechless".
The way I see it is that the equation of "balance" is off, and you will see more vigorous unionization of workers as Corporations take their turns to impoverish their workers. So far, there has been NO correction of Senior Execs ranks compensation and wealth for those "elite" employees who make the rules. They ar under scrutiny now, and we shall see how this correction will be made in the future.
Looks like unions have their work cut out for them for the next 10 years. Government needs to "step up to the labor plate" and introduce much stronger bills that protect labor on ALL fronts!
As I had stated in most of these posts since I came on the forum, it's all about busting unions, divide and conquer and it started with USAirways. But, the WAR has not been won by them; only this round.
Says whom? The above implies that most workers don't want a union. Think about this .... Could it be fear of reprisal from the employer? Think that doesn't happen? Happened to me when I unionized a local nursing home in Pittsburgh in 1996. I was fired for it and brought these charges to the National Labor Relations Board. An experience I will never forget. Health Care Service Wokers International 1199P protected me fiercely through the entire process. The nursing home ended up having to reinstate me and pay me back wages of 14 months . During that time, I was at the table negotiating the RN first contract ever.
Airlineorphan,
Bravo to you and on this Labor Day.
You made the point quite eloquently, and expressed the other side of the issue regarding the causes of the decrease in unionization of workers. I am sure you left some "speechless".
The way I see it is that the equation of "balance" is off, and you will see more vigorous unionization of workers as Corporations take their turns to impoverish their workers. So far, there has been NO correction of Senior Execs ranks compensation and wealth for those "elite" employees who make the rules. They ar under scrutiny now, and we shall see how this correction will be made in the future.
Looks like unions have their work cut out for them for the next 10 years. Government needs to "step up to the labor plate" and introduce much stronger bills that protect labor on ALL fronts!
As I had stated in most of these posts since I came on the forum, it's all about busting unions, divide and conquer and it started with USAirways. But, the WAR has not been won by them; only this round.
airlineorphan
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 380
- 0
Go PITbull!
All the surveys I've read recently say that the overwhelming majority of nonunion workers in this country would like to be in a union if they had an opportunity.
(I'm sure this is true for working people outside of the U.S. as well--and to Leadmech8, who said immigrants should go away, we're all immigrants here, unless you claim to be a Native American--another thing: immigrants are doing some of the best union organizing in this country)...
An injury to one is an injury to alll!
-Airlineorphan
All the surveys I've read recently say that the overwhelming majority of nonunion workers in this country would like to be in a union if they had an opportunity.
(I'm sure this is true for working people outside of the U.S. as well--and to Leadmech8, who said immigrants should go away, we're all immigrants here, unless you claim to be a Native American--another thing: immigrants are doing some of the best union organizing in this country)...
An injury to one is an injury to alll!
-Airlineorphan
airlineorphan
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 380
- 0
The free market ALWAYS has the final say!
Hi Bob, I hope you have been having an enjoyable holiday weekend.
As for free markets, sorry, but there just ain't no such thing! And the demise of a top down bureaucratic command economy like the Soviet Union in no way proves our so-called free market system (I like to think of it as Socialism for the Rich) will have the final say. People are more than labor inputs to be factored into a larger economic equation of market forces. We have a habit of organizing ourselves as you well know, and that organization, whether it be as unions or as your avenging cockroaches (may they ever scurry across B.B's snackables), makes a difference.
But I agree on a key observation you have made on several occasions. The labor movement in its current form is deeply flawed. I don't know that we agree on the direction it should go in order to correct those flaws--I think its main problems find themselves in the logic of being organized along a service or business model (a business designed to provide services to members).
I say it's high time to put the movement back in the labor movement. Democracy, solidarity, open debate about strategy, and a renewal of willingness to stand up to the "best and brightest" (whether they be the cut-throat pirates of the Crystal Palace or the Paternal Dictatorships of Love Field or Hartsfield). Seems like something worth fighting for.
One thing is certain. There's nothing like a unionbusting clown like Glass to demonstrate the necessity of strong fighting unions and active participation by the membership!
In solidarity,
Airlineorphan
Hi Bob, I hope you have been having an enjoyable holiday weekend.
As for free markets, sorry, but there just ain't no such thing! And the demise of a top down bureaucratic command economy like the Soviet Union in no way proves our so-called free market system (I like to think of it as Socialism for the Rich) will have the final say. People are more than labor inputs to be factored into a larger economic equation of market forces. We have a habit of organizing ourselves as you well know, and that organization, whether it be as unions or as your avenging cockroaches (may they ever scurry across B.B's snackables), makes a difference.
But I agree on a key observation you have made on several occasions. The labor movement in its current form is deeply flawed. I don't know that we agree on the direction it should go in order to correct those flaws--I think its main problems find themselves in the logic of being organized along a service or business model (a business designed to provide services to members).
I say it's high time to put the movement back in the labor movement. Democracy, solidarity, open debate about strategy, and a renewal of willingness to stand up to the "best and brightest" (whether they be the cut-throat pirates of the Crystal Palace or the Paternal Dictatorships of Love Field or Hartsfield). Seems like something worth fighting for.
One thing is certain. There's nothing like a unionbusting clown like Glass to demonstrate the necessity of strong fighting unions and active participation by the membership!
In solidarity,
Airlineorphan
airlineorphan
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 380
- 0
XOXO, PITbull!
-Airlineorphan
-Airlineorphan
airline orphan....good post....what is missing today in this society is INVOLVEMENT...i think we have come to this juncture by the way we live and survive.ever see how many people are in such a damned hurry on the highway or at a restaurant or in the mall?airlineorphan said:
who wants to take the time for union involvement?ahh...do it for me...get back to me.....i got to get the kids to skating...i just don't have time....
"what ,they're shutting down the company?....DAMMIT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?"I WANT TO KNOW RIGHT NOW!"
airlineorphan
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 380
- 0
Thanks Delldude,
You make some good points as well. I agree, a lot of people seem so distracted and caught up in stuff that they neglect to deal with the basics of participating in their own lives. Why deal with reality when you can watch a reality show on TV?
Of course I would add that membership participation has to be a 2-way street. The more room there is for different ideas and rank and file participation (room created by a forward thinking leadership), the easier it is for people to get used to participating in their unions again.
So, what I'm saying is that we'll only put the movement back in the labor movement when members participate and leadership encourages and supports that participation (even if it means working with people with whom you disagree). Tricky stuff, and it will take time to build but it sure beats the alternative: Bowing down before the "best and brightest" in the Crystal Palace!
In solidarity,
-Airlineorphan
You make some good points as well. I agree, a lot of people seem so distracted and caught up in stuff that they neglect to deal with the basics of participating in their own lives. Why deal with reality when you can watch a reality show on TV?
Of course I would add that membership participation has to be a 2-way street. The more room there is for different ideas and rank and file participation (room created by a forward thinking leadership), the easier it is for people to get used to participating in their unions again.
So, what I'm saying is that we'll only put the movement back in the labor movement when members participate and leadership encourages and supports that participation (even if it means working with people with whom you disagree). Tricky stuff, and it will take time to build but it sure beats the alternative: Bowing down before the "best and brightest" in the Crystal Palace!
In solidarity,
-Airlineorphan
I would just like to say that without AFA I would have been long gone from U. Not that I did anything wrong..but I was messed over by scheduling a few times and they were in the wrong...AFA stepped in and took care of all my situations...and without them...I would not have a job. Thank you AFA for doing what you do....It was worth my 39$ dollars...well spent......... 
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sun Country Airlines after first NMB Mediated session- Latest: CorvetteMan