In defense of unions.

[Direckshun]

The goings on in Michigan have taken some time for me to process, what with a lame duck majority of Michigan Republicans busting the only real leverage unions had in one of the biggest union states in America. There's been a heated debate over it the past couple weeks, albeit not on this forum, and tempers have flown off the handle as fistfights have broken out on the steps of the capital in Lansing.

Makes sense, it's a really heated issue, and I see both sides of it. One one hand you have people whose wellbeing has been supported and improved by unions -- those people are going to be intensely passionate about what happens. On the other hand, you have people who believe unions are unfairly leveraged bully organizations attempting to soak a company's profits dry.

I see both sides of the issue, but I'm pro-union. I see how they are often derided and dismissed on this forum so I think it's time to take at least one post to properly characterize what unions are all about and to flesh out why they are such a positive thing.

There are many different kinds of unions, so I am not offering a defense of any one particular union, but I think all unions benefit from the below arguments:

1. A union is democratic capitalism at work.

Our capitalist society encourages everybody to work hard, earn skills, and maximize those skills for your own personal gain. That harnessing this capacity to improve your life will drive progress in society, spark innovation and improve overall quality of life.

Well, that's what every union under the sun is. A group of people have acquired a set of skills, be it to build something, teach something or serve something, and they've decided to maximize their gain from those skills by banding together and negotiating with those who employ them.

Conservatives typically argue that the wealthy are virtuous, because they are able to find advantages in the market that play to their favor. They often argue in favor of huge bonuses that are frequently untied to any accomplishments for people who run companies, because that's what the free market has designated as their worth. That's exactly what unions are all about. They find an advantage in their market that plays to their favor, and attempt to maximize their benefit.

2. They fight inequality.

Now, whether you like the result or not of those negotiations, as an outside observer, is irrelevent to capitalism. What matters is that a worker should earn his or her leverage and then play it in the market for their advantage. Busting unions is an affirmative action to keep the masses of middle class workers from exploiting the advantages of capitalism, while further enabling the wealthy to benefit. Which brings me to my next point.

Inequality is not inherently bad, but there is an inequality epidemic in this country. We are at a historic point of inequality where, primarily though tax policy, the wealthy retain more and more of their wealth leaving the rest of pie in smaller and smaller slices to be divided up amongst a growing population of middle- and lower-class folks.

Unions were an effective check on this trend for large swaths of society, but they've been systematically busted in about half the country's states in various ways, leaving employees only able to negotiate in small packs or individually -- which, as if I need to tell you, is almost always a negatory position. Busting unions hurts the middle class, and further entrenches more wealth at the top.

3. They are the lone agency for middle class workers.

And that's my next point, really. Even if you dislike unions, you can agree with me on two things:

(a.) The wealthier you are, the better represented you are in terms of lobbying and interest groups. There are any number of interest groups that fight specifically on the behalf of people who have more resources, run businesses, are wealthy. The poor have always been underrepresented, there is no Big Poverty influencing the actions of Washington, DC, or any statehouse for that matter.

If there were ever a Big Middle Class, however, it's unions. That's Point (b.).

(b.) There is no more effective organization specifically geared at representing the interests of middle and lower class workers than unions. Which of course is the real reason why employers, who otherwise would face only nominal opposition in their ability to raise money and influence politics, despise them so much.

Unions are incredibly effective at raising funds and turning out political participation among their members. If they were to be wiped from existence -- what existing organization could possibly take their place?

America is America because of middle class workers. Broader than that: a healthy middle class is critical to any society's ability to thrive. Take unions away, or at least largely defang them, and you risk a political system with hardly any serious support for the most important element of society.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Are you aware of how the free rider problem is a legit back breaker for unions?

The free riders are the ones who are receiving more pay than value they create. That's what unions do. They redistribute wealth from the harder working union employees to the lazier ones.

Free riders are why I got out of the military, which is basically one giant union. When pay is based on seniority rather than performance, and people can't be fired, the workers break down into 2 classes, producers and free-riders.

The "free rider problem" that unions have, is that only free riders benefit from unions. Therefore, when given the choice, only free riders join unions. Thus, the union loses power.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

I was in a job where I had to be a member of a union once. I noticed right away that there was a lot of malice between the workers and management. The management would try to take advantage of the union workers at every opportunity. I thought, "Thank goodness there's a union to protect me from these ridiculous managers!"

One of the managers decided he didn't like me, mainly because I was more highly educated than him, and I think he saw me as a threat to his job. He got me fired, breaking/ignoring at least 3 different "rules" that were meant to protect me. The union filed a grievance, and guess what happened?

Nothing.

The company ignored the grievance, I stayed fired, and nothing ever came of it. Now I'm wondering what the point of the union was.

That’s exactly what happened to Gearhead Wrenching buddy when I used to refer to him here as Welder buddy. He got fired for refusing to break OSHA regulations, filed a grievance with the union and they basically told him “sucks to be you”.

[King_Chief_Fan]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/27/...ral-rap-sheet/

[KCWolfman]

Seems more like a protection racket than anything else.

"That's a nice job you have. We would hate for something bad to happen to it. For a few bucks we can make sure nobody messes with you"

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I understand why unions feel they have to force everyone to assimilate in much the same way that communism does. I also understand that they have to invent pejoratives for those who don't subscribe to their cause.

Actually "free loader problem" is common parlance describing the same dynamic with most interest groups. You can find it in Political Science 101 textbooks.

So you can kindly get down from the cross.

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Let's suppose my co-workers decide that they want to buy a fish tank for the office. I don't care about fish. I don't want a fish tank, but **** it. If they want one, I'm not going to stand in their way. But let's also suppose they start taking up a collection to buy a tank, fish, supplies, etc. and making a schedule for cleaning it, feeding the fish, and buying food. Am I a freeloader if I object to paying for and maintaining something I don't even want?

I am by your definition. I get all of the "benefits" of working in an office with a fish tank even though these "benefits" have a negative value to me.

Cry all you want about the unworkable business model of unions. It's not my problem.

Yet another shit analogy by Saul Good.

I really wanted to engage you on this subject, too, since you clearly have a personal angle on the whole issue.

I'm still very much interested, if you've got some arguments that don't rely on your analogies, which are and have been historically terrible.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Wouldn't those who receive the same benefits as union employees without having to pay dues be "finding an advantage in their market that plays to their favor, in an attempt to maximize their benefit"?

That's an interesting angle, but without leverage, unions have their hands tied, and the worker will reap little of what they'd be able to negotiate for them otherwise.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Good.

Unions had their place but you don't have to look very far to see they do far more harm that good today.

Do we agree on these two things:

1. Middle- and lower-class workers are underrepresented, politically, compared to their CEO and employer counterparts.

2. There is no more effective organization specifically geared at representing the interests of middle and lower class workers than unions.

If we do agree on those points, then the goal should honestly be finding more effective ways for them to function, not to merely defang them.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

Right to work laws are good, and they give people more freedom.

I'll take middle and lower class workers being incentivized into negotiating for better pay/benefits/whatev as a group than the freedom for workers to negotiate individually, which of course is not a real option for them.

You have to make pragmatic choices on these issues, not ideological ones, and I think that's the smart call.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm aware that giving workers a choice about whether or not to buy into the union reduces the power of the union. I don't think that changes anything though. Your argument had a huge flaw in that you claimed that union membership was voluntary when in reality, in non right to work states, it's coerced.

It's actually incentivized, but whatever.

You didn't answer my question. Do you understand how the free loader problem breaks the back of a union's ability to negotiate?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

as it well should be........union corruptness and the way they mishandle union pensions is reason enough for people to remain non-union.

I think anybody'd be lying if they said unions are always run well.

But companies aren't always run well, either. It's the cost of having humans participate in a capitalist society.

If we were going to oppose everything until a perfect solution arises, we're going to be waiting a while.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

In my experience, the hard working union guy is not really very hard working. They have no fear of losing their job, they don't get raises based on merit, and they are very concerned with what everybody else makes. They also believe they are entitled to everything and that if you don't support the union (ie, the democrat party) you hate workers and are some kind of elite pig and an enemy.

True story.

People suck, this is hardly breaking news.

I'm not sure what bearing this has on the subject at hand, though.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

I have to be careful and not hang around Steve Crowder when I talk. I don't want to get beaten by thugs who don't want their turf reduced.

You understand those union folks are freaked the **** out. They honestly think their benefits, pay, and maybe even rights could start dwindling as the power of unions subside in Michigan. And with rare exceptions, these folks weren't exactly living high on the hog to begin with.

It's a legitimate fear, sparking of course really irrational behavior. But we're talking about blue collar folks concerned, to varying extents, over their livelihoods. Grace and consistency is not typically what happens in these circumstances...

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

I was in a job where I had to be a member of a union once. I noticed right away that there was a lot of malice between the workers and management. The management would try to take advantage of the union workers at every opportunity. I thought, "Thank goodness there's a union to protect me from these ridiculous managers!"

One of the managers decided he didn't like me, mainly because I was more highly educated than him, and I think he saw me as a threat to his job. He got me fired, breaking/ignoring at least 3 different "rules" that were meant to protect me. The union filed a grievance, and guess what happened?

Nothing.

The company ignored the grievance, I stayed fired, and nothing ever came of it. Now I'm wondering what the point of the union was.

Very interesting story. Rep.

Unions don't bat 1.000 on these issues, unfortunately -- they offer representation, not invulnerability.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

If unions add value they should easily survive a right to work law.

Are you aware of how the free rider problem is a legit back breaker for unions?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

The free riders are the ones who are receiving more pay than value they create. That's what unions do. They redistribute wealth from the harder working union employees to the lazier ones.

Free riders are why I got out of the military, which is basically one giant union. When pay is based on seniority rather than performance, and people can't be fired, the workers break down into 2 classes, producers and free-riders.

The "free rider problem" that unions have, is that only free riders benefit from unions. Therefore, when given the choice, only free riders join unions. Thus, the union loses power.

This post is a bit out to sea, but I'll make a point that will be somewhere in the ballpark of where you thought this post was:

Unions do promote some faulty dynamics in places -- the seniority-based preference rather than talent-based preference is a big problem with our education industry, for instance.

But that can be reformed. You don't need to bust unions like pinatas to fix that problem.