Robert Reich: The Union Way Up

[WACF]

Do Unions create a workplace where hard work is not always recognized or rather rewarded.

Sometimes...but...what about pride in yourself and the quality of the work you do.

I get paid just as much as some guys that are lazy asses...but that has to do with supervision...not the union.

The idea that unproductive members or unsafe union employees are untouchable is a myth....the union ensures that the company gives the guy a chance as far as retraining, personal time off to sort out their personal life...councelling...what ever it takes.
If they do not want to change...they are gone.


Big Train...in my scenerio...which I am living at the moment....means that a union can not strike just because it feels like it...there is no legal reason.

The lay off is because of greed at the top...they overcharge...fill warehouses...the world crashes and they do not move their price...so the people at the bottom stay at home till things change...farmers do not buy because they can not...countries do not buy because they can not.

What the union gets you is proper lay off notice to get your affairs in order to weather the time off.
It ensures you are still covered by your health benefits.
It ensures that qualified senoir employee continue to do work on jobs that need to be done...not contracters or buddies of the managment.

And...it gives you the protection to voice your opinion about what is really going on when managment tries to shove sunshine up your ass and lie to you about what is really going on...monetary value...none....makes you feel good...worth it!

[GAR]

Imagining it is 1950 again feels nice

.. not unlike pissing in a wetsuit, it's a warm, flowing feeling but nobody else notices it but the wearer.

[GAR]

What the union gets you is proper lay off notice to get your affairs in order to weather the time off.
It ensures you are still covered by your health benefits.
It ensures that qualified senoir employee continue to do work on jobs that need to be done...not contracters or buddies of the managment.

And...it gives you the protection to voice your opinion about what is really going on when managment tries to shove sunshine up your ass and lie to you about what is really going on...monetary value...none....makes you feel good...worth it!

My salary ensures I take matters like health and retirement into my own hands, not some Sugar-Daddy mob grip.

[Big Train]

Except a lot of the manufacturers that fled abroad weren't even unionized industries...

If they weren't unionized industries, what's the concern? The unionized industries are the ones that are dying. The ones that left adapted.

[swage33]

Another generalization of mostly bullshit. I've actually seen unions fire workers for making them look bad, or at least the best workers get the work first and the least last...

BTW, as far as "cheap quality," how's the anitfreeze tainted toothpaste and lead toys from fucking China working out?

OK.....as an employer I am a consumer of labor. If the unions police their own...thats the way I want to go! I don't want the aggravation of negotiating with every member of my workforce individually. This method helps me in that it puts my labor expense on a salary.....easily tabulated and predictable. Mostly bullshit? You're arguementative style is confrontational. It results in a battle of egoes and leads off track from the initial arguement. Now, hang your head in shame.

[Nickdfresh]

If they weren't unionized industries, what's the concern?

I was referring to the stated "widget" examples of consumer electronics. But how would that imply the loss of any jobs wouldn't be a concern?

...The unionized industries are the ones that are dying. The ones that left adapted.

Um, no actually. There are areas in retail, construction, oil, education and the auto industry (which is not all doom and gloom) that still have viable unions and political clout.

The weakening of unions is the result of employers being allowed to prevent organizing by firing 'ringleaders.'

And how would a rampant abuse of workers rights by many in the neo-retail sector, the fact that workers' (middle class) wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s while those in senior management have sky rocketed since ever implied that we don't need "unions." You're the type that believes that gov't can't be trusted enough to regulate business, then why should workers put their trust in politicians that are easily bought off by lobbyists and corporate "donors?"

And I'm not saying that everyone needs to be in a union nor should everything be unionized. But I'm saying that they are part of a greater argument regarding the continual destruction of the middle class in this country...

If unions are so useless that they are "dying," then why are places like Wal-Mart working so hard to prevent them?

[Nickdfresh]

OK.....as an employer I am a consumer of labor.

Everyone is.

If the unions police their own...thats the way I want to go!

They do in many industries, because they have competition from other union halls and nonunion shops...

Unions can also essentially act as a employment agency in some sectors...

I don't want the aggravation of negotiating with every member of my workforce individually. This method helps me in that it puts my labor expense on a salary.....easily tabulated and predictable. Mostly bullshit? You're arguementative style is confrontational. It results in a battle of egoes and leads off track from the initial arguement. Now, hang your head in shame.

Get used to my argumentative style when I find you making general ASSertions. Maybe it is you that should hang your head in shame and at least respect the labor laws that have been hard won by the blood of those that simply wanted a fair days wage for a fair days work. And the right not to be "put out to pasture" like a fucking horse if they get injured....

[Big Train]

I was referring to the stated "widget" examples of consumer electronics. But how would that imply the loss of any jobs wouldn't be a concern?



Um, no actually. There are areas in retail, construction, oil, education and the auto industry (which is not all doom and gloom) that still have viable unions and political clout.

The weakening of unions is the result of employers being allowed to prevent organizing by firing 'ringleaders.'

And how would a rampant abuse of workers rights by many in the neo-retail sector, the fact that workers' (middle class) wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s while those in senior management have sky rocketed since ever implied that we don't need "unions." You're the type that believes that gov't can't be trusted enough to regulate business, then why should workers put their trust in politicians that are easily bought off by lobbyists and corporate "donors?"

And I'm not saying that everyone needs to be in a union nor should everything be unionized. But I'm saying that they are part of a greater argument regarding the continual destruction of the middle class in this country...

If unions are so useless that they are "dying," then why are places like Wal-Mart working so hard to prevent them?

Loss of jobs are a concern, if the business cannot be replaced by another in this country.

The examples you listed all having widely different business models which either factor in union costs or don't. In some cases, the costs don't matter (oil and education) as they are "core products' everyone needs. Those unions are very powerful and the costs are passed along accordingly in ever increasing tution and fuel prices. Retail is somewhat strong, but the retail companies are more likely to boot them and close the doors entirely so they aren't as strong. As that union probably isn't as strong, it's cost structure isn't as much of a burden I would guess as it is in say education. The auto industry, once it lost it's edge, those costs became a noose around it's neck. Billions being taken out of the company, which didn't go into R&D or quality or expanding credit or dealers. It didn't improve the company at all, which affected to overall business model. They couldn't pass those costs along to the consumer much, especially when in a price war with other makers with way less union obligation, if any at all.

Your right, not everything should be unionized. By the same token, they should have some forms of protection (which they do), which maybe, maybe not should be stronger. I'm just saying a middleman solution of a union, only takes more money from the workers with mixed results at best in representing them.

[GAR]

President Clinton wrote to Congress in the spring of 2000 and the letter that circulated to House members said, "China with more than a billion people is home to the largest potential market in the world… If Congress makes the right decision, our companies will be able to sell and distribute products in China made by American workers on American soil, without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China. …We will be able to export products without exporting jobs."

Arkansonian Bill Clinton, of the Walmart's Legal Team Clintons, of the Arkansas Wallmart Corp, pushed Congress to permanently normalize trade relations with Beijing, helping to ease China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Walmart ferociously pestered Capitol Hill in favor of joining WTO.

They lied saying China, with 1 billion consumers, was a new emerging market for many parts of Corporate America that could get onboard for a piece of this action.

Chinese are about as broke as fuck: there is no action, and there will be no "action" so we should pull out of the WTO, in my own very very humble opinion.

And weeks before that bill of Bill's received his signature, Robert Burt, chairman of the "Business Roundtable," an "association of CEOs of leading American corporations" lobby front for Walmart, spoke boldly about the future. "This historic legislation will be remembered as the key that opened the door for America to sell its products and services to the world's largest emerging marketplace," he declared.

(Notice I highlighted the INTENT of WTO, for the US to sell, not to buy cheap shit for 10 cents on the dollar compared to US products lasting 20 times longer.. FORD wonders "why does GAR hate Clinton?") I hate Clinton(s) because they're just Walmart tools.

Other executives around the U.S. supporting U.S. trade with Beijing, and China's efforts to get into the WTO reasoned that China would then be required to play by the same trading rules as the WTO's other members. But this turned out to be bullshit reasoning also, because the controlled China Yuan RMB still doesn't float as a free-market currency so that the true value cannot be known only guessed.

Furthermore boring to those who tire of my blazing 80wpm typespeed, the more the Europeans chased after us to catch up in doing business in China, US Corporations were pitched that "you don't wanna get left behind" worrying that if the WTO thing didnt pass, you lose out to the Europeans' getting an early edge, a worry Chinese officials played effectively like two-ends-against-thei-middle aim, throughout the 1990s until their WTO status.

So legislation to normalize trade with China gets overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, where it passed, 83 votes to 15. Even in the House the Democrats were split on the issue, but Clinton gets support from 3/4 Republicans, and it passes 237 to 197.

Before FORD chimes in on it that it was Bush's doing, Clinton signed the legislation at the White House in early October, months before Jr's inauguration - and China joins the WTO 14 months later, on Dec. 11, 2001.

So where was all that 1950's Union muscle in the 90's when the UAW needed it? And it's not just China, it's India too - India just got the Jaguar and Rover franchises from Ford which is under parts and engineering contracts to teach them how the build the fucking things.

Instead of providing retraining for Detroit and other loyal factory employees in new skillsets, they're training India to put the ricepaddy planting down and pickup machine tools and learning to read and write, and to give a shit about reading and writing. Why should we give a shit about Chinese or India feeding themselves we should be feeding ourselves first, retraining our people firsthand. Where's the Union negotiatings for the exit? They made tons of money in 6 figure salaries functioning as little more than a payroll deduction and I believe that warchest of paid dues should be disbursed to the workers in the form of retraining centers.

But of course, it's the Governments' fault, so the taxpayer in stead will be on the hook for retraining, unemployment, etc. and if they Gummint can take over the banks and house repos, they can take over the unions too.

A union is just a group, after all. They're there when you need them the moment to form a new one at a moments' notice untill Obama outlaws the freedom to do so.

Fuck WTO, liquidate UAW and sieze their assets, to disburse to Social Security for unemployment deductions: union problems solved, thanks for coming and goodnite

[Nickdfresh]

Loss of jobs are a concern, if the business cannot be replaced by another in this country.

The examples you listed all having widely different business models which either factor in union costs or don't. In some cases, the costs don't matter (oil and education) as they are "core products' everyone needs. Those unions are very powerful and the costs are passed along accordingly in ever increasing tution and fuel prices. Retail is somewhat strong, but the retail companies are more likely to boot them and close the doors entirely so they aren't as strong. As that union probably isn't as strong, it's cost structure isn't as much of a burden I would guess as it is in say education. The auto industry, once it lost it's edge, those costs became a noose around it's neck. Billions being taken out of the company, which didn't go into R&D or quality or expanding credit or dealers. It didn't improve the company at all, which affected to overall business model. They couldn't pass those costs along to the consumer much, especially when in a price war with other makers with way less union obligation, if any at all.

Your right, not everything should be unionized. By the same token, they should have some forms of protection (which they do), which maybe, maybe not should be stronger. I'm just saying a middleman solution of a union, only takes more money from the workers with mixed results at best in representing them.

What exactly do you mean "costs passed on to the consumers?" You mean having to pay a living wage? Actually, some of the best supermarkets are unionized, and they really aren't that much more expensive? But then the point of unions was to buoy the middle class so there would be lower middle to middle class that could actually afford to fucking buy things which is part of the paradox. Things become cheaper because people have less discretionary income and most families cannot afford to live on a single salary the way we could in the 60s and the 70s! When you suppress wages and polarize wealth in the name of higher corporate profits, then I think you have less people with discretionary income? Correct?

Then, I think I can point out that there really isn't a huge tie between most unions and prices. The tie is that corporations have never been more profitable in the US, and workers have never had such a long period of stagnant wages - since the 1970s, wages have hardly increased when adjusted, yet corporate profits have skyrocketed. But hey, at least companies don't have to worry about things like pensions anymore..

And UAW ruining the US car manufacturers? LMFAO The management did that well enough on their own with their seeming inability to respond to market forces and terminally backwards mentality with emphasis on short term profits while ignoring long term trends (like higher fuel prices). I will agree that the retirement packages are far too generous and the unemployment compensation thing is ridiculous (90% of their wage when laid off I think?), and these things need to be addressed. But the fact is that the UAW has made great strides and has given up a lot. I think I've also mentioned that many cars are made in Mexico and South America, where wages are low and yet there still doesn't seem to be many takers for them...

We of course could also point out that one of the reason why European cars (of which Ford and GM manufacture many of and have superior models in), S. Korean, and Japanese car makers have been more profitable with less overhead is their respective gov'ts cover the costs of health care freeing up capitol and saving a lot of time and problems.

[Big Train]

Costs passed onto the customers is exactly what it means. Paying unionized contracts for tenured professors, health care contributions and all the other concessions that are paid out are figured into the prices of products (education, services, etc..). You know, old school economics, "cost of goods sold". Unless the company is operating at a loss, it is passed along to the consumer, which allows for a profit. These costs structures for the auto companies eventually made them operate at a loss, speeding their decline.

The living wage isn't so much the issue, it's the legacy costs of workers in retirement and the benefits they are entitled to for long periods of time after they stop working, regardless if whether the company does well or not.

Management is another issue, which I am in agreement with you on. The parade of fuckups in their major decisions are well documented. The legacy costs though are what is really putting them in these tight spots. They are obligated to pay them either way, which dramatically cuts into their ability to compete, even if management were replaced with all stars.

[Redballjets88]

All this aside due to the unions in rust belt having massive lay-offs it insured that the auto workers in my non-union state kept their jobs.

[Nickdfresh]

Costs passed onto the customers is exactly what it means. Paying unionized contracts for tenured professors, health care contributions and all the other concessions that are paid out are figured into the prices of products (education, services, etc..). You know, old school economics, "cost of goods sold". Unless the company is operating at a loss, it is passed along to the consumer, which allows for a profit. These costs structures for the auto companies eventually made them operate at a loss, speeding their decline.

Oh, and what about the huge salaries of management and university presidents, coaches, and huge projects that are "passed onto the consumer" over what are modest at worst wages or workers from professors to grocery store clerks. BTW, the college example is a bad one on your part since most universities are having problems because they're often destroying their dept's by hiring part time, nontenured, faculty that are weak and cannot administrate well. But hey, maybe they'll pass the savings onto the consumer!

The living wage isn't so much the issue, it's the legacy costs of workers in retirement and the benefits they are entitled to for long periods of time after they stop working, regardless if whether the company does well or not.

Yeah, we can just be a nation where both moms and dads work, and the middle class keeps receding...

Management is another issue, which I am in agreement with you on. The parade of fuckups in their major decisions are well documented. The legacy costs though are what is really putting them in these tight spots. They are obligated to pay them either way, which dramatically cuts into their ability to compete, even if management were replaced with all stars.

It is management most of all though. They could have saw this coming, hell, they could have started bringing their Euro stuff here ten years ago and just made almost the same cars that they do there rather than expensively making different models for each continent...

[Big Train]

Oh, and what about the huge salaries of management and university presidents, coaches, and huge projects that are "passed onto the consumer" over what are modest at worst wages or workers from professors to grocery store clerks. BTW, the college example is a bad one on your part since most universities are having problems because they're often destroying their dept's by hiring part time, nontenured, faculty that are weak and cannot administrate well. But hey, maybe they'll pass the savings onto the consumer!

Yeah, we can just be a nation where both moms and dads work, and the middle class keeps receding...

It is management most of all though. They could have saw this coming, hell, they could have started bringing their Euro stuff here ten years ago and just made almost the same cars that they do there rather than expensively making different models for each continent...

No shit, management is a cost too. However, their headcount is usually not anywhere near that of union employees. Theoretically, they are worth their higher salary based on responsibility and in some cases the amount of business they can generate. Cost/benefit says those salaries are justified (before you go off and soil yourself, remember I said theoretically). Education is a PRIME example. Every year it becomes less affordable to the middle class you speak of. Soaring costs, for what? Mostly salaries, in terms of tuition.In terms of fees, it's the kickbacks to the university from loan companies that needs a serious looking at. Upper management, alumi directors bring in giant amounts of money, so they are worth the price. It keeps tenure as a viable option, their model can afford it. The only one who eats it at the end of the day is the consumer...the student.

Obviously, in a state school these numbers are much lower and different, but the point is still the same. I'm not blaming anyone for making what they make. You are free at any time to do something more profitable. But to say it's always "the big machine's fault" is just a distortion.

The world and economic model is changing. I honestly don't believe there will be many large employers in the future. We will be a nation of small individual companies, with a few large ones. With the advances in automation and software large numbers of bodies just arent needed. Unions or not, that does not change.

[WACF]

No shit, management is a cost too. However, their headcount is usually not anywhere near that of union employees. Theoretically, they are worth their higher salary based on responsibility and in some cases the amount of business they can generate. Cost/benefit says those salaries are justified (before you go off and soil yourself, remember I said theoretically). Education is a PRIME example. Every year it becomes less affordable to the middle class you speak of. Soaring costs, for what? Mostly salaries, in terms of tuition.In terms of fees, it's the kickbacks to the university from loan companies that needs a serious looking at. Upper management, alumi directors bring in giant amounts of money, so they are worth the price. It keeps tenure as a viable option, their model can afford it. The only one who eats it at the end of the day is the consumer...the student.

Obviously, in a state school these numbers are much lower and different, but the point is still the same. I'm not blaming anyone for making what they make. You are free at any time to do something more profitable. But to say it's always "the big machine's fault" is just a distortion.

The world and economic model is changing. I honestly don't believe there will be many large employers in the future. We will be a nation of small individual companies, with a few large ones. With the advances in automation and software large numbers of bodies just arent needed. Unions or not, that does not change.

That does not apply everywhere though...but has a large element of truth to it.

Where it falters is I have a hard time with any CEO making an obscene amount of money then stating that fees or costs are going up.

In the mining industry you still needs body's on the ground to run equipment...in 20 years I have seen large amounts of automation but our employee numbers have only risen.

...and...as far a wages go...I make the same when our product went for $200/ton as it now does for anywhere from $700-$900/ton...not true at the corporate level though...they are well compensated for driving the price up.

Our competition's CEO made the same wage by noon on the first day of the year as all the union employees in his company would for the year...obscene...