I am mostly pro-union. I believe that the only way for the little man to get a fair shake out of a big organization is to similarly organize. I encourage the efforts of the working class to squeeze a better lifestyle out of their employers, who are bound by the very nature of capitalism to squeeze every last penny out of the employees. A recent example is the WGA strike. It is ridiculous, with the amount of work the writers have to do, as contracted employees, to not get their standard residual on DVD and Internet sales. Their work is more intensive than actors, and they're not easily replaced, but since it's not nearly as glamorous, they get shut out of the financial loop.

I've known several union reps, and they seem to me to be reasonable, compassionate people who do their best to look out for their compatriots. I do not blame unions for the outsourcing of manufacturing to other countries, I think market forces have sunk that ship. I'm fairly apathetic towards the plight of the shareholders who have to deal with union activity, because they signed up to deal with it when they decided to become a shareholder. Nor do I buy into the logic that unions suppress business. As long as the need for a product or service exists, the business that provides for that need will exist too. Markets rise and fall on the changing of the demand for that market. It's change or die in today's world, and sitting on top of a giant corporation that hasn't changed the way it's done business in years is a perilous throne. If you can't adjust for the demand of services fluidly and your business becomes superfluous, you will fail. Blaming your workers accomplishes nothing.

it's been my experience that the only reason for a union is bad management. either abusive, or flat out not paying the worker anything near what they're worth.

there are companies that have unions, but don't need them anymore, but you're more likely to end up working some place that needs a union and doesn't have one.

Great post, Nap. I totally agree, especially on the part about the writers. They are under-appreciated!

Yes, there is a human element to unions.

I know for a fact that the Auto Unions only hurt the US Auto Industry.

Some of these workers come to work with a hang over. It is very hard for GM to fire them because of the Unions.

Look at Japsanese companies like Honda. They do just fine.
In fact, it is easier for them to compete because they don't have a union.

Let the job market take care of itself, we really don't need unions in our Auto Industry.

The same thing also goes for UPS.

I know for a fact that the Auto Unions only hurt the US Auto Industry.

Some of these workers come to work with a hang over. It is very hard for GM to fire them because of the Unions.
some management comes in drunk, what's your point?
Look at Japsanese companies like Honda. They do just fine.
In fact, it is easier for them to compete because they don't have a union.
no, they have lower health care costs and no pension costs to speak of-Toyota USA has 6 retired employees....let's just kill the old and weak!:rolleyes:
Let the job market take care of itself, we really don't need unions in our Auto Industry.

The same thing also goes for UPS.
now i know you're off your rocker! UPS is one of the few companies that has a union and needs one!

I know for a fact that the Auto Unions only hurt the US Auto Industry.

Some of these workers come to work with a hang over. It is very hard for GM to fire them because of the Unions.

Look at Japsanese companies like Honda. They do just fine.
In fact, it is easier for them to compete because they don't have a union.

Let the job market take care of itself, we really don't need unions in our Auto Industry.
Bingo. I don't think unions are intrinsically bad, but UAW only harms Ford, GM, and Chrysler. The stodgy, slow-to-adapt culture that unioned workers tend to create and perpetuate is a big reason why Detroit cars are so shitty, which is in turn the reason why they're slipping to the increased prosperity of Toyota and Honda.

I made my point quite well in my last post.
Pleant of workers come to work with a hang over and the company can't fire them because the union protects them.

UPS is as bad as it gets with bad workers, and they can't easily be fired because of the unions.
My friend was a supervisor at UPS plenty of people come in late or don't show up. (multiple times)

These sorry workers can't be fired very easily becase of the wonderful unions.

It is getting worse every year. Today many parents do a poor job of teaching their kids a good work ethic. Then they hide behind the union to keep their job.




some management comes in drunk, what's your point?

no, they have lower health care costs and no pension costs to speak of-Toyota USA has 6 retired employees....let's just kill the old and weak!:rolleyes:

now i know you're off your rocker! UPS is one of the few companies that has a union and needs one!

Unions are a mixed bag. At one time they served a definite and important purpose. Workers were exploited and treated like sub-humans.

Some unions still serve a similar purpose and keep workers from being exploited but far too many simply join in the exploitation. Workers are forced to pay dues to a union that does not represent them but that instead signs sweetheart deals. Other unions make such outrageous demands that they cause companies to go under.

I can remember when the union killed Fairchild. The union rules made it impossible for the company to remain competititve.

Let the job market take care of itself,

Markets don't "take care of themselves" any more than our roads or bridges do.

Markets are man-made systems and as such need to be regulated in order to function properly, just like power systems and water systems.

Unions are a mixed bag. At one time they served a definite and important purpose. Workers were exploited and treated like sub-humans.

Some unions still serve a similar purpose and keep workers from being exploited but far too many simply join in the exploitation. Workers are forced to pay dues to a union that does not represent them but that instead signs sweetheart deals. Other unions make such outrageous demands that they cause companies to go under.

I can remember when the union killed Fairchild. The union rules made it impossible for the company to remain competititve.
And the UAW will finish off the American auto industry. I agree Frogger, there are good unions and bad ones. One cannot classify the whole idea of all the current unions into a "good or bad" synopsis.

And the UAW will finish off the American auto industry.

No, our insane trade policies that force our workers to try to compete with slave labor in mexico and china are what killed our auto industry.
Blaming the unions for our trade policies is like blaming the police becuase we have crime and saying if they just stopped enforcing our laws we would no longer have any criminals.

I would place the US auto industry's recent loss of market share square at the feet of the auto designers, who failed to realize that fuel economy would become an important factor to American consumers. The UAW was forced to make many concessions in wages and benefits, and thousands of workers got laid off.

I would place the US auto industry's recent loss of market share square at the feet of the auto designers, who failed to realize that fuel economy would become an important factor to American consumers. The UAW was forced to make many concessions in wages and benefits, and thousands of workers got laid off.
Having been a supplier to the "big three" for nine years, the biggest problem with the American manufacturers (other than the preoccupation with big SUV's that you mentioned Nappy) is the way that the suppliers were/are treated.

I produced "second tier" carpet for GM, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, and Nissan. When either GM or Chrysler demanded a cost decrease (understand that 85% of the cost was based on raw materials) there was NO departure from the specified product and materials that THEY mandated. Toyota and Nissan would come to me and ask "what can we do to improve the price without affecting the performance?" I know this sounds simplistic, but it is the problem in a nut-shell. I could modify the specification to meet the requirements for the "transplants" to still give them the performance that they required... or I could "cheat" on the domestics, in order to meet the mandated pricing.

Now you figure out who makes the best quality cars.

All in all, I think it's far easier to look at labor and their seemingly anti-business stand and attack them for hindering progress, instead of taking a real close look at the factors surrounding upturns and downturns. The real fact is, labor has to work in concert with the industry, not against it. The unions can only get more out of management if the market can bear it. Otherwise, the shareholders will simply walk away, leaving labor holding their collectively bargained dicks. Labor doesn't have the luxury of mobility. If workers get fired, they're up shit's creek. Time to find another industry to spend years getting into. There's only so far they can push it. But management can grind workers into the dirt if left alone, and a lot of them will.

That is why it should not be legal for businesses use slave labor or to import products made using slave labor.

By being allowed to make labor compete with the poorest and most desperate workers it forces wages and benefits down for everyone.

I would place the US auto industry's recent loss of market share square at the feet of the auto designers, who failed to realize that fuel economy would become an important factor to American consumers. The UAW was forced to make many concessions in wages and benefits, and thousands of workers got laid off.
you're mostly right. auto design went the SUV route because that's what ppl were buying, and the big three needed the mark up to pay the pension plans and health care costs.

most of the layoffs weren't really forced. the UAW membership was given the option of mandatory overtime or full employment. seniority won.

By being allowed to make labor compete with the poorest and most desperate workers it forces wages and benefits down for everyone.

It is part of the bedrock of the Conservative (IOW, Corpora-Fascist) ideology and agenda that the American worker is to be placed in direct competition with those workers in Third World nations, so as to steadily lower the effective wage that the American workforce will be paid.

I recently read that -adjusted for inflation- the average America worker is earning 3 cents less per hour than he was making 30 years ago. All while the CEOs and the management have experienced huge increases in their salaries.

It is part of the bedrock of the Conservative (IOW, Corpora-Fascist) ideology and agenda that the American worker is to be placed in direct competition with those workers in Third World nations, so as to steadily lower the effective wage that the American workforce will be paid.

I recently read that -adjusted for inflation- the average America worker is earning 3 cents less per hour than he was making 30 years ago. All while the CEOs and the management have experienced huge increases in their salaries.

You are absolutely correct FT. It is a bedrock of the Conservative philosophy that there should be a small, rich class of ruling elite.
The whole first chapter of Russel Kirk's classic book, the bible of the modern conservative movement, "The Conservative Mind", is all about how the highest goal of society should be "stability" and that can only be achieved with rigid classes and a small ruling elite.

The biggest problem with modern conservatives is that they are either too dishonest to talk openly about their real agenda or they are too ignorant to realize what the real agenda is of the people they are shilling for.