Vallejo, Calif.: Like state, like city

The town on San Pablo Bay just north of San Francisco filed bankruptcy as plunging property taxes crippled the town's coffers and left the city unable to make-good on union labor contracts.

 

For more, click the link

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Furloughs-Dont-Fly-With-City-Workers/_9JHjwepb020_1zQlYwIQw.cspx

 

 

No.

 

To me it seems the cities and states would do much better without unions. When the times were good unions were ok. It allowed more middle class workers to achieve their dreams. but when the times are bad. It's very bad. The whole thing about unions just doesn't fit in anymore.

 

 

To say "when the times were good" is to reject the reality that the only reason the times were good, is because of the union.  What is killing us is that as globalization becomes larger (and there is nothing wrong with globalization) and systems become faster we broaden ourselves to a supply of workers that do not yet have a definition of a standard of living.  The fact of the matter is that we are becoming a society of minimum manufacturing.  We need to start developing more tech here to increase manufacturing jobs. 

 

What is killing governments (bankrupting California) is the concept of stealing companies from states like Ohio, Michigan, PA by offering corporations free land and no taxes.  That causes growth, but eventually the growth leads to the state having too many commitments, roads, free education (in the case of CA), sewer, water, rail and other infrastructure costs.  Increased expenses and diminishing revenues because you cater too much to the corporation and then you are in the spot CA is in.  Just like you say a lot of growth in the south right now, because they have no taxes.  In 15 years those states are going to be in for a rude awakening.  Salaries will grow to the point where companies begin to rethink strategy and look for cheaper labor.  Populations will grow to the point that infrastructure costs outweigh the tax revenue taken in and the states will have huge budget defecits. 

What about the unions who refuse to do work, but when a city decides to have outside help to do the job, the unions go ape sh!t and sue the city over the job that they weren't doing and then continue not to do said job after they win the lawsuit? It seems to me that unions no longer do what they were originally intended to do, which was fight for fair wages, fair hours, and work safety.

 

Not only that, but it seems that some members feel that they won't ever lose their job so they do ridiculous things like clocking in on the weekends (overtime) and then go out and play softball all weekend instead of working (essentially they are getting paid overtime to play a game and drink beer). Also, their job performance is sub-par or they feel comfortable enough to sleep on the job. Now, I am not saying that all workers are like that, but it happens to much and if it didn't, maybe GM wouldn't be leaving Mansfield.

Slowly, yes.

 

There was a time and place for unions, but not any more. I certainly don't want to offend anybody who belongs to one, but their primary purpose in this day and age is to make sure their members are paid superior wages for whatever skill level they possess. This spans the entire spectrum, from your regular laborer union to an airline pilot's union.

 

Unions came to power in an age when big business was legitimately exploiting their work force. Not just exploiting, but threatening their very lives with unsafe working conditions. That simply does not happen any more in this country, and we have unions as well as Federal and State laws to thank for that. But their time is up, just look at how they've hamstrung the entire auto industry.

Yes.

 

Most non-union companies (just within the realm of people I know well enough to discuss this) have had across the board pay cuts as of recent, ranging from 5-20% from what I have heard.  This has alowed companies to stay afloat.  Not having that option puts companies (or in this case governments) in a terrible position. 

I agree they are hurting some industries.

 

I can't speak to the city unions but having worked in the manufacturing sector for 3 years now I can tell you that they are putting a lot of strain on manufacturing companies in this country.  They had their time and place, they won their fight and now it seems they have just become power hungry.  The company I am currently with has cut salaries by roughly 8% (1 unpaid week off a quarter), but the union has been able to escape any pay cuts at all.  They need to realize that we're all on the same team before the entire ship has sunk.

In the articles quoted it is the police and firefighters who are busting the city budgets.  Frankly the local ASFCME union doesn't have much negotiating power, but politicians fear the Firefighters and Police.

(disclaimer: i'm not in a union, but did grow up in a strong union household)

 

i don't believe that Unions are killing us...they still offer protection for workers that wouldn't exist if not for the unions themselves.  Sure, there are anti-discrimination laws out there and a fired employee could sue for wrongful termination...but proving those things in court is no simple task.  and what worker could afford to sit at home and wait out the results of a lawsuit that could take years?

 

Unions still offer protection in an era when companies show no loyalty to their employees.

 

Personally, i am torn about the Cincinnati situation.  One one hand, a few unpaid days off is better than not having a job...but, why should they take unpaid time if it's possible that they'll just get laid off anyway?

I don't think the answer is black or white, but there appears to be a correlation between right-to-work states and job growth.  Corporate taxation and workforce training are probably the more important drivers, but one could argue that union-ism has not helped states like Ohio in either regard. 

 

Take a look at the survey of company CEOs linked below for opinions on which states are perceived to be best for business right now.

 

 

http://chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=D8BB1C4F12AE46EF9B7647E09E3253A6&AudID=72E5923167534E2FA8CAC760727D0426

There's also a correlation between right-to-work states and poverty.

 

From the right-of-conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8953

 

No, it isn't black and white, but what's good for venture capitalists isn't always good for the workers. The key to real economic growth is sustained investment. Effective unions keep the investors at the table by insuring a highly skilled workforce invested in the future of the company. Effective corporations recognize the value in investing in a highly skilled workforce invested in the company's long-term future. Of course the quality of unions and corporations varies widely. But even the worst corporation has a board of directors representing the will of the partners or stockholders. At the very least, unions confer these same rights of representation to the workers. Without this voice, management can only be deaf to the needs of the workers, and without a contract, they are under no obligation to even attempt to listen.

 

Want a world where unions don't need to exist? Simple: do away with crappy corporations.

Yep. 

Nope.  Greedy mega-corporations are killing us. 

 

One mega-corporation in particular, Goldman Sachs, was recently profiled by Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi in "The Great American Bubble Machine:  Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression".  Whatever influence unions have today absolutely pales in comparison to the current power and influence of today's mega-corporations.

 

They are both killing us.  Stocks, derivatives, finacial instruments are a manipulated market.  The average person has no business being involved in those markets.  If that had been the case over the last 20 years, the losses would have been much smaller and primarily limited to the super rich.  The problem was ordinary people got greedy too.

The way unions work now? Heck yes.

 

The way unions should, can and will likely be in the future? No, and they may be the ideal way to operate industry.

 

 

 

Right now, a union manager's only goal is to fight for their workers, which is a very noble and necessary cause. However, when the workers are rather well off, such as many auto workers that have somewhat ridiculous compensation and benefits, then it just turns into a fight to kill the company, however well-intentioned the unionmen are. Although I am a strong union Democrat, I still think there is no reason why any corporation must pay for their employee after they are retired or give many of the benefits they do. Yes, they were a valuable asset to the company, but they have moved away from the company, so it is time for the company to move away from them.

 

Still, after the auto bailout and bankruptcy mess is over, a beautiful thing will happen: the unions will become owners. There will no longer be a middleman or rift between the worker and his company, and there will no longer be opposing camps within the company. Workers will determine what is best for themselves without endangering the company by demanding more frills, and they will be more likely to not give in to the pressures of outsourcing, layoffs, bad products, etc. that are easily used as cheap management tricks at the expense of the worker. This model has worked well so far for Appleton paper in West Carrolton, near Dayton, along with many other strong companies throughout the state.

 

Again, maybe I'm alone on this, but I don't really see why there should be two seperate warring components running one company, especially when a combined unit could most effectively run the company in a way that made employer and employee happy.

 

We'll just have to see how it all turns out.

We are talking about public sector unions ...particularly public safety (fire and police) iin Unusualfires examples, and I think the situation is different vs private sector.

 

The reason is that public sector unions have a claim on tax money, which adds to the tax burden of a community.  The more raises & benefits there are more the claim on tax revenue, resulting in unionzed workers claim on the local budgets crowding out other expenditures, eventually leading to budget deficits or...in Ohio... tax increases, creating the high-tax environment in Ohio.  The issue is really excaberated if these unions are in a local government with declining or static population, or is poorer, or is being hit hard by the economic downturn.

 

This is an issue right now in Dayton city, and I've lost a lot of respect for the police union due to their unwillingness to accept a wage freeze.  Now the city is laying off police and you can read the howls of protest on the Dayton Daily News website comments.  The FOP is being really unreasonable on this, IMO.  The reality is if the money isn't there to pay them they either accept a wage freeze or suffer layoffs, just like workers in the private sector. 

 

The FOP and their supporters can't seem to get their head around this concept. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope.  It's the corporations.  Unions do dumb things more often than not, but that doesn't mean they aren't right about what they're saying. 

I think unions started to go off the rails when they began collective bargaining for wages. It makes sense that all  workers should be treated alike when it comes to safety, working conditions, hours, benefits, etc. but as soon as we  decouple wages from individual productivity a company will eventually be unable to compete in a free market against those who have not done so. 

The safety issues were eventually taken over by the worker's comp lawsuit culture. When lawyers took over that realm, unions were left with less reason to exist.

 

If you work for almost any non-union company now, safety is really and truly the centerpiece of the workplace, often to the point of absurdity.  I worked at once place where you couldn't walk on a skid because your ankle *might* fall through.

 

I know a place where unfortunately they had a guy die in his car on break out in the parking lot when he choked on his own vomit from drinking the night before. They got sued. 

 

I know another place where a guy was not authorized to repair a fork lift but he disconnected the hydraulic line and was promptly crushed by the falling forks. His family sued.     

The way unions work now? Heck yes.

 

The way unions should, can and will likely be in the future? No, and they may be the ideal way to operate industry.

 

 

 

Right now, a union manager's only goal is to fight for their workers, which is a very noble and necessary cause. However, when the workers are rather well off, such as many auto workers that have somewhat ridiculous compensation and benefits, then it just turns into a fight to kill the company, however well-intentioned the unionmen are. Although I am a strong union Democrat, I still think there is no reason why any corporation must pay for their employee after they are retired or give many of the benefits they do. Yes, they were a valuable asset to the company, but they have moved away from the company, so it is time for the company to move away from them.

 

Still, after the auto bailout and bankruptcy mess is over, a beautiful thing will happen: the unions will become owners. There will no longer be a middleman or rift between the worker and his company, and there will no longer be opposing camps within the company. Workers will determine what is best for themselves without endangering the company by demanding more frills, and they will be more likely to not give in to the pressures of outsourcing, layoffs, bad products, etc. that are easily used as cheap management tricks at the expense of the worker. This model has worked well so far for Appleton paper in West Carrolton, near Dayton, along with many other strong companies throughout the state.

 

Again, maybe I'm alone on this, but I don't really see why there should be two seperate warring components running one company, especially when a combined unit could most effectively run the company in a way that made employer and employee happy.

 

We'll just have to see how it all turns out.

 

Oh yeah.... This is way off topic. Sorry!!!!!

Unions really have to figure out how to best serve its members, because in 2009, unions need people more than people need unions.  (unless it is a government employee union, or baseball union, then you are strong)

 

I worked for an automotive supplier, and roughly half our plants were union, half were not.  When I would walk into a new plant I could tell within 1 minute if it was union or nonunion.  In nonunion plants the employees were smiling on the job.  The union always would hammer into the people how bad they are being treated, how bad the company was, how sub par the equipment was, etc., because that was the culture.

In general presidents were elected based on popularity, and his friends would get stewarding positions, and people who ran against him would be shunned.  There were lots of times I tried to get skilled welders more money so we would not loose them, but if one of the welders was not a friend of the President at that plant, the union would block it.  If the president was one of the skilled welders, it would fly through that plant.

 

I was at a new plant and there was a union drive.  The union promised a raise, which is illegal, and in some cases not true.  They also asked everyone to fill out a card so they could send them more information at home.  Then the union, steelworks in this case, took those cards to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to say these were card checks and applied to have these cards recognized as a vote.  (This is the card check legislation which is going to pass Congress)

Once the workers found out, they were livid.  Yes, the company did have meeting with employees on why unions were bad.  They showed graphs of non union plants, and pay raises over 20 years, and the union plants, how unions will never bargin away automatic deductions of dues coming out of a paycheck, etc.

When it came down to a vote, the NLRB came to the plant and called each employee one at a time to a meeting room where there was a union official, a company official and members of the NLRB (who are members of a gov't union).

 

The union objected to 25 of the 140 employees.  Which IIRC was the maximum percentage.  They did not have to give a reason.  The employee lost the ability to vote, but would have to live with the results.  The 25 were generally the most vocally anti-union.  The company objected to one employee, and had to give a reason why.  Turns out he worked for the steel workers union before being hired on.  We later found out there were 3 employees who worked at the plant who were working for the steelworkers to bring in the union.

 

When the votes were counted only 2 people (I suppose the two on union payroll) voted for the union.

 

 

That is a long story to say:

1. Card check is bad

2. Unions have to offer something better than "we are going to take big bad corporation down a notch"

It's not just a culture at the plants, it's a political culture, and a culture that is carried on by the kids of union guys, even if they end up working in an office.  A lot of Cleveland and Toledo guys who are too young to remember the union heydays still get fired up over this crap. 

I grew up union

"The safety issues were eventually taken over by the worker's comp lawsuit culture. When lawyers took over that realm, unions were left with less reason to exist. " 

 

Good Point.  Also OSHA and Dept. of Labor and Industries took over a lot of union functions leaving only wages to argue about. 

 

one thing i find to be interesting is that many anti-union folks also are on the anti-government bandwagon.  They consistently say that because of government protection (which is opposed to their world view) we don't need the unions any longer.

 

Many people have bad experiences with a particular union and make blanket judgments which is fair( personal experience is an important factor in any judgment) but is still a generalization.  Hell, many of us have terrible experiences with private companies and we don't make blanket judgments about all private industry.

 

Both have their goods and bads, neither side should be trusted completely.

 

All i know is that i'm not going to trust a private business who's only motivation is profit to keep a worker's best interests in mind. 

No one is saying that organized labor is bad  we are merely suggesting that the way some unions are run today (e.g. UAW) is counter productive to the cause of organized labor.  I suspect that most employers would welcome a well run, rational union- only one party to deal with to negotiate, work conditions, benefits, etc. 

one thing i find to be interesting is that many anti-union folks also are on the anti-government bandwagon

 

Well taking a braod, blunt view of this, government employees are in unions.  These workers can not strike by law, so on its surface it ishard to see what benefit they get by being in a union. 

The anti-gov/anti-union people see it this way.  Union members pay dues, a percentage of thier salary.  The union can form political action committees and give money to candidates, typically democrats.  The more employees on the federal payroll, and the more money they make the larger the "kickback" is to the Democrats.

Remember the controversy over whether or not the TSA screeners would become federal employees or not?  Well, it came down to Republicans not wanting more people on the federal payroll, in a government union that always gave thier money to the Democratic party.

 

Last time I checked there was no derivatives-traders union, sub-prime mortgage-brokers union, sleazy hedge fund manager's union...

Remember the controversy over whether or not the TSA screeners would become federal employees or not?  Well, it came down to Republicans not wanting more people on the federal payroll, in a government union that always gave thier money to the Democratic party.

 

No, i don't remember that.  But, if that's true, then that's really pathetic. 

In the early 80's Reagan fired the air traffic controllers when they went on strike, which set the tone for the pro-business 80's. 

Anti-union ≠ pro-business.

My brother is in a trade union (because his dad is). He made boo-koo money, then quit the union to do a gig in vegas that paid even more money, then quit; now he's collecting alot of money from unemployment until that runs out at which point he'll get his dad to get him back in the union with no problem.

 

The problem with unions is that they only care about their long term workers. Also, your productivity isn't relevant at all - they either like you or they don't. The factory I worked at had 2-tier workers. For a lot of factories who operate with union workers, they first find employees through temp agencies and have the recruiters tell employees how if they show up to work on time every day they can get hired on at the company and be in the union with all these great benefits, high pay, etc. then they find out that they're just like countless others who the temp agency knew ahead of time they would fire after 3-4 weeks before the company would have taken them on. In other words, you're either disposable and they could care less about you or you're in it and set for life. It's the only way they can profit -  by being extremely flexible with hiring/firing cheap temps yet extremely rigid at the same time with the union workers.

 

When I worked at a factory, I was told that once I'm in the union in a few months - that if I got injured and couldn't pass a drug test, that they would pay me to go to rehab. That's insane. I believe people should have to be a grown up and take responsibility for their actions. Not have some union protecting their idiotic behavior. With the dangerous machines I was working around, there was no way I'd ever think about coming to work high. That's just stupid. The floors were so oily; I was always lifting heavy stuff that required coordination.

 

I love capitalism. I just believe in a humane capitalism that's competitive but realistic. A lot of unions are screwing the game up. It's predatory. And when you have low paid foreigners who aren't spoiled with ridiculous benefits and who work for far less and don't complain about petty b.s., then ultimately they're going to be the winners and we're going to be the losers.

Only 12.4% of workers belong to a union: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

It's unclear to me how that 12.4% could be queering it for the rest of us, but trust me: there's plenty of opportunism, ass-covering and slacking off in the non-unionized work world.

 

For example, this post.

Only 12.4% of workers belong to a union: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

It's unclear to me how that 12.4% could be queering it for the rest of us, but trust me: there's plenty of opportunism, ass-covering and slacking off in the non-unionized work world.

 

For example, this post.

 

Cheap shot.  At the end of the day you will be judged on your productivity first-whether or not you posted.  Most non-union shops really don't care much about anything else unless your behavior is affecting someone else's productivity.

 

In a union shop, other things take precedence.  That is the difference. 

Only 12.4% of workers belong to a union: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

It's unclear to me how that 12.4% could be queering it for the rest of us, but trust me: there's plenty of opportunism, ass-covering and slacking off in the non-unionized work world.

 

For example, this post.

 

Cheap shot.  At the end of the day you will be judged on your productivity first-whether or not you posted.  Most non-union shops really don't care much about anything else unless your behavior is affecting someone else's productivity.

 

In a union shop, other things take precedence.  That is the difference. 

I don't find that to be true at all, and I can't help wondering if it's time for administrative workers to start unionizing.  I find that most private-sector non-union employers do absurd, insulting, unfair, and often illegal things to their employees just because they can and it makes them feel good.  I'm talking about piddly, personal, even sadistic stuff they'd never dare attempt if their administrative staff was unionized. 

 

Also, society's increasing infatuation with "at will" and "independent contractor" employment is largely responsible for the current economic collapse.  The margin between long-term financial commitments and zero-commitment employers is the amount of doom your society is cooking up for itself.  These two things must balance out.

 

All this and I'm still ambivalent on unions.  But the idea that they're "killing us" is one I can't condone.  There's a strong case to be made that their downfall took us along with it.

I think it's a cheap shot to blame our country's economic downturn on 12.4% of the workers. It's also a cheap shot to suggest that a union shop, by definition, is dysfunctional. The rhetoric around this thread is overheated and anecdotal. So much so that the first appearance of an actual statistic is considered a cheap shot.

 

So much for an honest day's work. Go ahead, union-bashers. Blame our problems on someone else. If you really think it'll turn things around, then I'm all for it.

I agree with you kingfish, I doubt many of the people who dreamed up derivatives or who gave out NINJA loans were in any local chapter.

 

But if card check becomes law, it will hurt non-right to work states, in my opinion. 

Didn't study labor law in school, but I really don't understand how this is a state issue.  Interstate commerce is affected tremendously by differences in union rules.  That should be enough to move it into the federal sphere.  The whole idea of a federal constitution was to prevent states from playing cutthroat with each other.  It was clear in the late 1700s how harmful this was for the country.  Now we're engaged in a race to the bottom with the old confederacy.  That is precisely what wasn't supposed to happen.

I think it's a cheap shot to blame our country's economic downturn on 12.4% of the workers.

 

I

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

 

The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.8 percent)

was substantially higher than the rate for private industry workers

(7.6 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had

the highest union membership rate, 42.2 percent. This group includes

many workers in several heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers,police officers, and fire fighters. Private sector industries with high unionization rates include transportation and utilities (22.2 percent), telecommunications (19.3 percent), and construction (15.6 percent). In 2008, unionization rates were relatively low in financial

activities (1.8 percent) and professional and business services (2.1

percent).

 

Interesting that of the public sectors in trouble, they have the highest rates of unionized membership. Just a point.

^

...and, I think, the point of the thread header.  Public sector unions are like old school attitudes in private sector unions from the 1970s or so.

What I find troubling is the willingness of the union leaders to ride a company into the ground rather than accept a wage freeze.  Where did this sense of entitlement spring from?

^there are unions for things that are actually difficult jobs, like firefighting and policing -- things that not everyone's cut out to do.  Then there is the UAW, which gets unskilled workers $50+ hour in total compensation and driven the world's largest company into bankruptcy. 

 

Yesterday I saw Joe Biden climb into his big caddy limo and couldn't help but roll my eyes that his whole blue collar schtick is what drove that very company into the ground. 

 

Also a lot of these city service unions have problems with double-dipping on retirement, where people start collecting retirement after 20 years and then work another 20 to get double retirement.

Only 12.4% of workers belong to a union: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

It's unclear to me how that 12.4% could be queering it for the rest of us, but trust me: there's plenty of opportunism, ass-covering and slacking off in the non-unionized work world.

 

For example, this post.

 

Cheap shot. At the end of the day you will be judged on your productivity first-whether or not you posted. Most non-union shops really don't care much about anything else unless your behavior is affecting someone else's productivity.

 

In a union shop, other things take precedence. That is the difference.

I don't find that to be true at all, and I can't help wondering if it's time for administrative workers to start unionizing. I find that most private-sector non-union employers do absurd, insulting, unfair, and often illegal things to their employees just because they can and it makes them feel good. I'm talking about piddly, personal, even sadistic stuff they'd never dare attempt if their administrative staff was unionized.

 

Also, society's increasing infatuation with "at will" and "independent contractor" employment is largely responsible for the current economic collapse. The margin between long-term financial commitments and zero-commitment employers is the amount of doom your society is cooking up for itself. These two things must balance out.

 

All this and I'm still ambivalent on unions. But the idea that they're "killing us" is one I can't condone. There's a strong case to be made that their downfall took us along with it.

 

It depends on whether you work in an industry (even the service sector-e.g. law firms)  that can quantitatively measure individual worker productivity.  If individual productivity can be measured, the union is counterproductive for labor if collective bargaining for wages.  Look at Lincon Electric in Cleveland.  Happy workers getting paid piece work.  I have either been self-employed or an independent contractor for over 20 years.  I love it and would hate to be compensated on anything other than a productivity based scale. 

There's nothing wrong with piece work, and if unions say there is, I disagree with them.  Now... there's something wrong with piece work when you're given significant unpaid responsibilities beyond the piece work.  This has been known to happen... not talking about Lincoln, who is known internationally for their piece work system... just in general.  Other companies aren't always so fair about how piece work arrangements are set up.  Also, what if you agree to A and Darth Vader says the deal is now B?  These are instances when you hope there'd be somewhere to turn.  It could be a union, it could be the court system, but you hope the only option isn't "self help."

 

As for driving companies into the ground by refusing wage freezes, the context is massive growth in executive pay regardless of company success.  Workers should bite the bullet while failed management continues to prosper?  Assuming we're talking about the car companies' troubles, are we assigning no blame to management, design and engineering?  That seems illogical considering the actual division of responsibilities.

Power and greed is killing us.  Unions with too much power and greed and killing us just as corporations with too much power and greed are killing us.

 

Good unions are good for the economy, just as good corporations are good for the economy.  And vice versa.

 

That's what kills anything...when people get too big for their britches and want more.  Think of any society, corporation, anything.  Want more and want it too fast and you're f-ed.

 

Unions were, at one point, one of the best things that happened to the American worker.  Then they (some of them anyway) got too powerful, said screw the higher function/integrity of the business and started getting greedy.  Take an example that has nothing to do with the overall economy:  baseball.  Ther refusal by the union to allow drug testing has tainted the game/image of the game from the mid 90's to now.  Once either side - union or management - starts looking out for their own interests way more than the interest of the business you are actually in, then that's what kills "us".

^Well said.

here's a pretty interesting column about the canadian auto workers.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/article984750.ece

 

The auto industry is in crisis around the world, due to an unprecedented collapse in sales. And governments around the world (from Europe to Asia to the Americas) have moved quickly to keep the industry in business.

 

Only in North America, however, has this restructuring been sidetracked by an ultimately phony confrontation over auto worker wages. Auto workers are well paid everywhere - after all, that's a key reason governments chase auto investments in the first place. But only in Canada and the United States have governments made auto assistance contingent on union concessions. That's not the case in Germany or Japan (where auto workers make more than they do in Canada), nor in Brazil or Korea (where they make less). Only here has the future of the industry been linked to a frontal attack on unions.

Well said shs96. 

I'm interested in how this union decision will play out over the decades. I'm a firm believer that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and this is the last blow in the complete gutting of organized labor in America.

 

My mom is the member of a teacher's union that frustrates her, they wanted to go on strike and she had no desire to go on strike, and union leadership is typically totally disconnected from members. But I told her at the end of the day the union is the reason she makes a decent living and without them, GOP politicians and Tea Party board members would have teachers on poverty wages by now (which they have already done at charter schools).

 

So in the next five years, you're going to have all these people quit unions to save a few bucks on dues, and then in fifteen or twenty years when pay and benefits are worsened gradually, they may find themselves wanting to join the union voluntarily, be more involved in it, and overall have a union that is far more representative of the members than the unions are today.