so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 27, 2011 11:00:07 GMT -5
a while back a week or so, wisconsin wanted to do away with collctive bargaining. this was put in motion by politicians. politics by definition is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. now thats irony.
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Mar 27, 2011 11:34:49 GMT -5
The goal of unions has been to provide a counterpart to the interests of capital. Unions are meant to represent groups of workers who might not be able to bargain for safe working conditions, wages, or other benefits individually. The relationship between unions and capital would be adversarial but assist workers in receiving more for their work and help capital owners receive a stable workforce. This made much more sense in the 19th century than in the 21st, where many of the goals of safe working conditions, a floor on wages, (now) health insurance coverage are provided through governments rather than directly through employee/business relationships.
Those ideas don't hold true for public employee unions, and this is the reason why many people do not support these unions (especially as they are currently constructed). There is not an adversarial relationship between unions and political parties in many areas. In addition, politicans don't have the same incentives as a captial owner, because they are not really bargaining with their own money.
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 27, 2011 12:00:15 GMT -5
why would the government provide health insurance coverage rather than your employer. and in the original post io was pointing out that the very thing they are trying to outlaw was essentially the efinition of their jobs. politicians take the oppinions of their constituants and then do what they can along with other senators and congressmen to get what the people they represent want . the same is true of union officals they are appointed to represent those who put them where they are. i seer no difference.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Mar 27, 2011 12:18:06 GMT -5
stats45, well stated!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 10:40:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 12:30:42 GMT -5
The goal of unions has been to provide a counterpart to the interests of capital. Unions are meant to represent groups of workers who might not be able to bargain for safe working conditions, wages, or other benefits individually. The relationship between unions and capital would be adversarial but assist workers in receiving more for their work and help capital owners receive a stable workforce. This made much more sense in the 19th century than in the 21st, where many of the goals of safe working conditions, a floor on wages, (now) health insurance coverage are provided through governments rather than directly through employee/business relationships. Those ideas don't hold true for public employee unions, and this is the reason why many people do not support these unions (especially as they are currently constructed). There is not an adversarial relationship between unions and political parties in many areas. In addition, politicans don't have the same incentives as a captial owner, because they are not really bargaining with their own money. To address the first bolded part, without a union, if your employer breaks the law you must sue them. And this does risk your job/reputation in your field. Or, if you have a union, you pick up the phone and your union rep has a phone call/meeting with the boss and things are fixed. If not the union does the legal action or reporting to the labor board. Laws are great if people follow them but I worked my way through school in restaurants and retail and trust me bosses don't. It look 3 years (and many class action lawsuits) for one restaurant I worked at to give us lunches. Btw, not all states have penalties for hourly employees missing their lunches and in those states even a lawsuit won't change anything. To address the second bolded point, the union is not bargaining (normally) with elected officials. They are bargaining with a lawyer and a few higher ups for example in a hospital the CNO (chief nursing officer), in a university, the president or VPs. Both of those are both private and public.
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Mar 27, 2011 12:32:41 GMT -5
so1970, with the recently passed health care legisltation, health insurance has become a 'right'. If you don't receive health insurance from your employer, you can buy from a (now highly regulated individual market). If you can't afford insurance, subsidies will be provided. Unions are not as relevant in determining whether or not you will have health insurance as they were before the law was passed. That is my point. I didn't support the legislation, but these things are consequences of the legislation.
Your point just doesn't make sense. When workers unionize to bargain with a business they work for, the two parties have competing interests and goals. The relationship only makes sense because it is adversarial. Both parties puch against each other and make concessions to reach a mutually beneficial outcome (in theory). When public employees unionize against a government where one or more political parties actively seek out their support by offering benefit or wage increases, there is no adversarial relationship that ensures efficiency.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 10:40:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 12:41:07 GMT -5
so1970, with the recently passed health care legisltation, health insurance has become a 'right'. If you don't receive health insurance from your employer, you can buy from a (now highly regulated individual market). If you can't afford insurance, subsidies will be provided. Unions are not as relevant in determining whether or not you will have health insurance as they were before the law was passed. That is my point. I didn't support the legislation, but these things are consequences of the legislation. Your point just doesn't make sense. When workers unionize to bargain with a business they work for, the two parties have competing interests and goals. The relationship only makes sense because it is adversarial. Both parties puch against each other and make concessions to reach a mutually beneficial outcome (in theory). When public employees unionize against a government where one or more political parties actively seek out their support by offering benefit or wage increases, there is no adversarial relationship that ensures efficiency. Actually, the highest raises I have seen negotiated we done in the private sector not the public. Also, there is a max amount of income for an public sector, lets take a school district as an example. Though the board may be willing to give a raise where would they get the money, raise the property taxes? That would piss off more people. But, again, they are not the ones negotiating, in general. Often the CFO will put together a budget and where there is wiggle room as will the union put together a lists of wants. Both will have things they are unwilling to do and over time they will give proposals the other side takes back and sees how close they are to what they what and then give another proposal. I have been around both private and public sector negotiation. There is no difference and NEVER do the elected officials get lobbied in regards to contract negotiation.
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Mar 27, 2011 12:49:15 GMT -5
gin1984, your first example kind of makes part of my point. Unions in the early 20th century dealt with worker deaths, remarkably unsafe working conditions, child labor, etc. Agreements that once had to be made through unions and companies and now regulated by the government. At times the regulation makes sense and at times the regulation is unnecessarily onerous, but the relationship is much more between workers, government, and unions than it used to be. That is my point. Workers in the early 20th century would have only dreamed to be worrying about lunch breaks. The role of unions is much different now.
I don't think that the history of unions is all bad or that unions always lead to awful outcomes. Unions have helped make practical gains in worker treatment. That doesn't mean though, that unions always create the best outcomes. Business conditions change, and if union contracts reduce flexibility entire companies and industries can be taken down because there is not flexibility.
To address your second point, it doesn't matter whether or not they are negotiating directly with elected officials or representatives. The point is that the elected officials appropriate monies to provide wages and benefits for the unions, and the elected officials do not always have a personal interest in seeing that the money appropriated is used efficiently. They can finance worker benefits and wages through debt or higher taxes, even if there is little reason for wages or benefits to increase.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 10:40:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 13:28:16 GMT -5
gin1984, your first example kind of makes part of my point. Unions in the early 20th century dealt with worker deaths, remarkably unsafe working conditions, child labor, etc. Agreements that once had to be made through unions and companies and now regulated by the government. At times the regulation makes sense and at times the regulation is unnecessarily onerous, but the relationship is much more between workers, government, and unions than it used to be. That is my point. Workers in the early 20th century would have only dreamed to be worrying about lunch breaks. The role of unions is much different now. I don't think that the history of unions is all bad or that unions always lead to awful outcomes. Unions have helped make practical gains in worker treatment. That doesn't mean though, that unions always create the best outcomes. Business conditions change, and if union contracts reduce flexibility entire companies and industries can be taken down because there is not flexibility. To address your second point, it doesn't matter whether or not they are negotiating directly with elected officials or representatives. The point is that the elected officials appropriate monies to provide wages and benefits for the unions, and the elected officials do not always have a personal interest in seeing that the money appropriated is used efficiently. They can finance worker benefits and wages through debt or higher taxes, even if there is little reason for wages or benefits to increase. I ended up in the ED last sunday because my boss decided we were too busy for the workers to eat. I had a hypoglycemic attack, I think missing my break is important, also it is the law. Given that they will break that law, what do you think will happen when there is no unions around, you don't think businesses will try to reverse the laws? I grew up with a parent in a union (public sector) and I did not see "They can finance worker benefits and wages through debt or higher taxes, even if there is little reason for wages or benefits to increase.", the only time I saw huge increases was when a union moved into a private sector hospital and wages rose to 20% in 4 years. However, the other hospitals were similar in the new wage, not the old one. The union was ask to come in, by the workers, because the wages were bad compared to other hospitals. I saw cuts when needed and increases when there was an increase in revenue. The cuts were less than the private sector but so were the gains. I think most people against unions have not worked low end jobs where they were told do it or loose your job (even when it was illegal) or don't realize the elected officials are not making bargaining decisions, the appointed/hired employees are. Never have I seen unions get extra wages because of donations to a elected official, I have seen a union person call when the "boss" was breaking the law and getting that fixed but would you have preferred her to call the labor board and the county get fined $100,000 for illegal act?
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 27, 2011 14:54:51 GMT -5
unions do not serve the people of the state - only their members. but all people of the state enjoy benefits that were fought for and won by the union such as a 40 hr. work week ,health care,adecent wage and safe working conditions.the unions are treated like the military by most people no one wants them around until they are needed. and if they were not around i assure you they would be needed.
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 27, 2011 15:04:09 GMT -5
the post was not started to say how great the union is, although i believe it is needed. i started this to point out that the very thing the politicias are trying to make illegal is actually the definition of their job.....the supporting of the collective people or collective bargaining. by definition politics is a process where groups of people make decissions for the collective people
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Mar 27, 2011 15:15:15 GMT -5
enjoy benefits that were fought for and won by the union such as a 40 hr. work week ,health care,adecent wage and safe working conditions. True - but that is all ancient history, those issues were won in the 1950s, 60's, and 70's and written into Law. Many Unions have been counterproductive since that time. I was a Teamster when I drove 18-wheeler in the early 1960's, the union was helpful then. Later I worked 33 years for a non-union Fortune 500 company, about 100,000 employees. Very pleasant and safe company, competitive salaries, all of the things that you think that only a union can provide. BTW, in what way does a corporation add value to heathcare? The only reason that companies are involved is because of the wage freeze in WW2, companies were not allowed to give raises, so they added benefits. Why not get businesses completely out of heathcare, give us the money, and have us buy our own heath insurance wherever we wanted. Then when you change companies you wouldn't have to go thru the new healthcare fiasco.
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 27, 2011 15:45:06 GMT -5
if the union was not around who would be there to stop corporations from lobbying to get certain laws changed to their favor. not all politicians have your best interest in mind when passing law. who will lobby for the protection of a handful of workers when corprations decide that their interest out weigh yours. i believe when reagan shut down the air traffic controllers strike some liberties were taken. do you honestly believe that was in the interest of the people or the airlines.
|
|
|
Post by jnap on Mar 27, 2011 17:35:57 GMT -5
There is no mystery to collective bargaining. It is simply a group of people, with a common interest, that decided there is safety in numbers. First, public sector employees are also citizens of the states, counties and cities where they reside and are just as much a taxpayer as anyone else. The difference is that politicians and their policies come and go but public employees remain and must deal with the latest plans, ostensibly, to make government more efficient. They must fight the whims of the latest elected official trying to make some point; often to influence the voters in the next election, and not necessarily to help the public at large. Without collective bargaining what power would they have with policies that very much effect their jobs and lives? It has become the norm to fight the working class using other members of the working class as combatants. Someone once said that the rich will always pay half of working class to fight the other half while they hide in the decent. Never forget that the rich will never act on behalf of the working class.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 27, 2011 17:46:20 GMT -5
Considering the advancements in the airline industry and the number of fliers compared to the 80's, I'd say the people benefited from that.
|
|
|
Post by stantonjane on Mar 27, 2011 18:28:45 GMT -5
Kudos jnap, you got my full agreement and karma. Just because they have fair labor rules doesnt mean employers wont be trying to get around them.
|
|
|
Post by stantonjane on Mar 27, 2011 18:28:52 GMT -5
Kudos jnap, you got my full agreement and karma. Just because they have fair labor rules doesnt mean employers wont be trying to get around them.
|
|
|
Post by stantonjane on Mar 27, 2011 18:52:47 GMT -5
Sorry about the double post, I tried several times to delete it.......
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Mar 27, 2011 20:08:43 GMT -5
Considering the advancements in the airline industry and the number of fliers compared to the 80's, I'd say the people benefited from that. Definitely agree. If you want an example of how out-of-touch the airline unions are, consider the Air West/ Amer Air merger a few yrs ago. Each company had a Pilots Union, they tried to arrive at a seniority list for yrs w/o success. Then they formed a third Pilots Union to replace the two feuding unions. And they still can't agree on a seniority list - by the time they finish, that group of pilots will be retired. If the merged company was non-union, the management would put together a task force, study the seniority issue, and publish the answer - probably wouldn't take over a couple months. Way more productive than paying three unions to screw with it for several years,sue each other a few times, yada. Do you really think that is efficient, fair, or productive??
|
|