The War on Labor Unions is a War on All of Us

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I have no lack of respect for working people. On the contrary, I fully respect their value, their individuality, and the importance of their freedom to make individual choices in the issues that affect their lives.

Unlike self-styled "progressives" ( and BBB) I don't view them as members of a class who can be considered as sheep, sorely needing the ministrations of self appointed shephards, who know better than they themselves what is really good for them.

Freedom and individual initiative are very precious things. The horrors perpetuated by authoritarian tyrants theoughout the 20th century - always in the name of achieving some sort of socialist or fascist social perfection - were very real indeed. History is not yet over and human nature has not yet changed. In view of all that, I find the sappy credulity of BBB and others here quite remarkable.

Sheep at least have the sense to stick together...The question is: If we do not need a union, and can all contract for our labor on an individual basis, for what reason do we have a country when we can all defend our own property on an individual basis... People get together out of common need for common defense...Labor is like any other commodity... When you increase the supply you drive down demand and so drive down cost... And that is what computerization is about and mechanization...When you are in the labor market, you might find that one has money, and another has a farm, and another has a wife with a good job so they can afford to work for less than you... Is it fair for them to get your job only because they can drive the price lower than you can afford to do it for only because they have other resources you do not have??? Unions work by controlling the supply of labor, but with our economy as we have it there is no reason unions cannot be run right out of business... That does not mean that they are not needed... What is needed are revolutionary unions that are capable of taking over the task of government completely... If we do not get rid of the unions we have and make the ones we need revolutionary, there is no low state that working people cannot be driven out of necessity for food...

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Freedom and individual initiative are very precious things. The horrors perpetuated by authoritarian tyrants theoughout the 20th century - always in the name of achieving some sort of socialist or fascist social perfection - were very real indeed. History is not yet over and human nature has not yet changed. In view of all that, I find the sappy credulity of BBB and others here quite remarkable.

And yet you would argue that workers should give in to the authoritarian capitalists? Your ox seems to be rather one sided george.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Freedom and individual initiative are very precious things. The horrors perpetuated by authoritarian tyrants theoughout the 20th century - always in the name of achieving some sort of socialist or fascist social perfection - were very real indeed. History is not yet over and human nature has not yet changed. In view of all that, I find the sappy credulity of BBB and others here quite remarkable.

And yet you would argue that workers should give in to the authoritarian capitalists? Your ox seems to be rather one sided george.

I'm sure George would say 'you could always quit and find other employment.'

But, what about the fact that many if not most can't AFFORD to quit their jobs? Can't afford any prolonged interruption of employment? Can't afford to have their health care interrupted? Can't afford to move their family to another state to find employment?

I think those who are greatly removed from the struggles of the middle and lower classes tend to minimize such factors, and sort of wave them away. Not realizing that it's just one more thing that increases the power of management. It's the same as pretending that employee intimidation doesn't exist, or that secret ballots somehow stop this from occurring.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1's "sappy credulity" indicates he can't stop disrespecting people.

BBB

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sure George would say 'you could always quit and find other employment.'

But, what about the fact that many if not most can't AFFORD to quit their jobs? Can't afford any prolonged interruption of employment? Can't afford to have their health care interrupted? Can't afford to move their family to another state to find employment?

Everyone and every human orgasnization faces challenges and the frequent need to adapt to a new and often disagreeable difficulties. The remedy is always either to adapt or do something else. There is no social or economic system that can rid us (or anyone) of the need to deal with such challenges - however much you may wish it to be so. Even the deleriously happy Cubans working for their egalitarian government have to cope with sometimes disagreeable or demanding bosses and the lack of many things they might like.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think those who are greatly removed from the struggles of the middle and lower classes tend to minimize such factors, and sort of wave them away. Not realizing that it's just one more thing that increases the power of management. It's the same as pretending that employee intimidation doesn't exist, or that secret ballots somehow stop this from occurring.

Cycloptichorn

You are positing here that I don't understand what I am writing about, while you surely do. Interesting.

I have repeatedly found that dealing with people as individuals, rather than as members of a class, is a more useful and reliable way of connecting with and understsanding the reality of their views and interests. Perhaps your experience has been different.

I never asserted that attempts to persuade or even intimidate employees don't exist. Managers and Unions do it all the time. Moreover I don't even believe that secret ballots are a perfectly effective remedy for it. However they do come pretty close - that indeed is the basis for democracy. A much more relevant question would be - why, if you are so concerned about employee intimidation, do you defend the actions of the current administration (through the NLRB) to limit secrtet ballots in union organizing efforts and potentially to codify these limits in the "card check" legislation proposed by Democrats.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You are positing here that I don't understand what I am writing about, while you surely do. Interesting.

Surely you aren't comparing your personal situation with mine, and claiming that I am somehow less removed from the challenges listed above than you are? Laughing

That's a farcical position to take. You may have, at one time, suffered under the sorts of financial pressure that I and my colleagues do, but I doubt anyone here believes you still do.

Quote:

I have repeatedly found that dealing with people as individuals, rather than as members of a class, is a more useful and reliable way of connecting with and understsanding the reality of their views and interests. Perhaps your experience has been different.

I have no doubt that what this is really useful for is the continuation of the arguments you like to forward - that the Rentier is due the lion's share of all profits by divine right, and that those who would seek to challenge that situation are nothing more than scumbag communists, or something like that.

Quote:

I never asserted that attempts to persuade or even intimidate employees don't exist.

No, but you persistently refuse to discuss it, or account for the fact that this may be a large part of what has caused unionism to decline over the last few decades. A balanced presentation of the situation would do so - but that wouldn't fit the narrative you are forwarding, that when workers are presented with unionization, they reject it because they don't like the idea of being unionized.

I haven't found that to be the case, and it wasn't the experience I had while being in a union. Everyone I knew in our union was glad it existed, and I would like to think that the management of our companies weren't so pissed about it either, in the long run. Having a dedicated training program for their employees that was paid for in large part by the employee's own funds took a lot of pressure off of them to provide such things.

Quote:

Moreover I don't even believe that secret ballots are a perfectly effective remedy for it. However they do come pretty close - that indeed is the basis for democracy.

How so? Imagine a situation in which one learns their employees are planning on unionizing. The management team considers this to be a disaster for them, so they round up the people they believe are behind this effort and make it known (in individual, untaped, one-on-0ne meetings) that these people will be fired; the company doesn't care if they say they aren't going to vote for the union, they personally will STILL be fired. How does a secret ballot keep this from happening, exactly?

I worked in a law clinic as an undergrad many years ago and we had several instances of this reported to us - the workers had unionized and indeed had been fired (usually on a thin pretense) shortly after. It was very difficult to go forward with lawsuits due to the 'he-said, she-said' nature of the discussions. In a few cases the individual who had the discussion with the employees (threatening to fire them) wasn't even an actual employee of the company at all, but instead someone who worked for one of the previously-discussed union-busting law firms.

Card check gets around this bullshit by allowing the employees to unionize before the management realizes what is going on and has the opportunity to bust it up through intimidation. So, that's why I support it. It would have helped out the people I worked with on this issue.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

You are positing here that I don't understand what I am writing about, while you surely do. Interesting.

Surely you aren't comparing your personal situation with mine, and claiming that I am somehow less removed from the challenges listed above than you are? That's a farcical position to take. You may have, at one time, suffered under the sorts of financial pressure that I and my colleagues do, but I doubt anyone here believes you still do.

I'm financially secure by some standards - no surprise after a long career in the military and business, but not beyond concerns or the need for continued income. What I have, I earned and accumulated myself. You appear to take the truly farcical position that I have no memory or learned nothing from the experiences of getting here, while you know and understand things which you (by your own indication) haven't experienced yet.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I have repeatedly found that dealing with people as individuals, rather than as members of a class, is a more useful and reliable way of connecting with and understsanding the reality of their views and interests. Perhaps your experience has been different.

I have no doubt that what this is really useful for is the continuation of the arguments you like to forward - that the Rentier is due the lion's share of all profits by divine right, and that those who would seek to challenge that situation are nothing more than scumbag communists, or something like that.

I made no such arguments. You are, once again, flailing about at imaginary foes. Moreover, I am not a "rentier" in the sense you suggest. I am very actively involved in (and responsible for) the day-to-day management of our company and, along with a few other managers, a significant investor in it (half of our stock is held by an ESOP trust held by all our employees, who are themselves also investors.). I think the issue here is that you appear to believe that actions and activities that are outside you view don't exixt or are without value. If so that is the essence of ignorance.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I never asserted that attempts to persuade or even intimidate employees don't exist.

No, but you persistently refuse to discuss it, or account for the fact that this may be a large part of what has caused unionism to decline over the last few decades. A balanced presentation of the situation would do so - but that wouldn't fit the narrative you are forwarding, that when workers are presented with unionization, they reject it because they don't like the idea of being unionized.

I have NEVER refused to discuss this issue. I merely didn't (and don't) think it has much to do with the recent decline of unions. Read some history. The union movement in this country started in our coal and steel industries in the face of some very real and serious opposition by employers, but it flourished despite this precisely because it was then doing something real and beneficial. The opposition unions face from management today is puny in comparison (and sorely limited by law), but despite that unions are failing. Why??? Weak and ineffective organizations (and people) are often given to faulting others for their own failures, and I think that is the case here.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I haven't found that to be the case, and it wasn't the experience I had while being in a union. Everyone I knew in our union was glad it existed, and I would like to think that the management of our companies weren't so pissed about it either, in the long run. Having a dedicated training program for their employees that was paid for in large part by the employee's own funds took a lot of pressure off of them to provide such things.

I don't know the fact of your situation, but I do know a great deal about collective bargaining agreements and the way unions operate. I strongly suspect your instructors were union shop stewards who had their salaries paid by the company. The only unions that I know of that routinely provide shop or skills training are the Building Trades, and they make supporting such training an explicit part of their dues and of the benefit payments they demand of the employers.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Moreover I don't even believe that secret ballots are a perfectly effective remedy for it. However they do come pretty close - that indeed is the basis for democracy.

How so? Imagine a situation in which one learns their employees are planning on unionizing. The management team considers this to be a disaster for them, so they round up the people they believe are behind this effort and make it known (in individual, untaped, one-on-0ne meetings) that these people will be fired; the company doesn't care if they say they aren't going to vote for the union, they personally will STILL be fired. How does a secret ballot keep this from happening, exactly?

I worked in a law clinic as an undergrad many years ago and we had several instances of this reported to us - the workers had unionized and indeed had been fired (usually on a thin pretense) shortly after. It was very difficult to go forward with lawsuits due to the 'he-said, she-said' nature of the discussions. In a few cases the individual who had the discussion with the employees (threatening to fire them) wasn't even an actual employee of the company at all, but instead someone who worked for one of the previously-discussed union-busting law firms.

Card check gets around this bullshit by allowing the employees to unionize before the management realizes what is going on and has the opportunity to bust it up through intimidation. So, that's why I support it. It would have helped out the people I worked with on this issue.

Cycloptichorn

If you don't think the equivalent (or worse) goes on at the hands of union organizers and their hired thugs, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It appears your solution to intimidation efforts by management is government sanctioned and unbridled intimidation by unions.

1 Reply

Why do we need unions?

To fight stuff like this:

http://www.teamster.org/content/dow-jones-uncovers-alleged-looting-hostess-amid-talk-%E2%80%98shared-sacrifice%E2%80%99-execs

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

If you don't think the equivalent (or worse) goes on at the hands of union organizers and their hired thugs, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It appears your solution to intimidation efforts by management is government sanctioned and unbridled intimidation by unions.

The big difference is that a 'union thug' doesn't directly control your livelihood and future income stream. You may make noises regarding threats of physical violence, et cetera, but those are illegal matters that are really no different than any other illegal threat of violence. It's not illegal for your employer to threaten to fire you if the work force goes union. So, the two situations are not comparable in the slightest.

I don't find your rhetoric to be even-handed. People associated with unions are always referred to you with perjorative terms such as 'thugs.' You've done it several times in this thread. That doesn't present an image of someone who is recognizing that there are just as many thugs who work for management, as there are for unions. And that a club made of poverty hits as hard as a wood one. The guys I spoke about earlier, who were fired due to the unionization their workforce went through, after being intimidated by management? It destroyed their lives, George. They were fucked. You don't seem to realize that for many people, being fired from a job makes it very, very hard to get another job in the same industry, or at anywhere near the income level they had previously.

As for me, I did indeed work in a building trade - I was a sheet metal bender. Union proud and always will be. We did quality work and deserved quality pay for that work, and we got it. Without the union, we wouldn't have, and that's a fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It was a hard bloody fight for unions to get established. I suspect it will be as rough to get them re-established.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

There are many common motivations and behaviors among humans.

On that assumption, your first diagnosis would have been unjustified as well. If we don't know what motivates people, we don't know that a dislike of unions motivated workers in so-called right-to-work states to abandon unions .

1 Reply

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

georgeob1's language used represents his disrespect for the working class people:

So what if it did? People aren't entitled to respect just because they belong to a particular social class. You yourself are quite happy to disrespect "the one percent" in our political discussions. So what's your problem with georgeob1 showing disrespect towards unions? Why the double standard?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Just creating something you have to gripe about.

BBB

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
There are many common motivations and behaviors among humans.

On that assumption, your first diagnosis would have been unjustified as well. If we don't know what motivates people, we don't know that a dislike of unions motivated workers in so-called right-to-work states to abandon unions .

I think you may be distorting my argument, or perhaps I don't understand your point. Union organizing efforts have become significantly less successful over the last several decades wherever they were attempted. That, together with the (probably related) decline of unionized industries in this country, has markedly reduced private sector unions both in absolute terms and as a percent of total union membership. The laws and rules governing union organizing have not become any more restrictive in these decades (since 1980 or so), so we are left with the observation that they appear to - on the whole - have become less wanted by the workers involved than they were seventy ago when the union movement grew so rapidly. Alternatively, perhaps the unions aren't trying as hard.

In right to work states the chief factor appears to be that without the government guaranteed ability to get a monopoly on employment, and the forced collection of dues by the employers, the unions themselves don't even attempt the organizing effort. I believe Joe from Chicago would attribute that to a rational response to the perverse "freeloading " impulse of humanity. However that impulse didn't inhibit the formation of unions here a century ago in the face of then very serious and often thuggish opposition from their original targets in the coal and steel industries.

Most of the really serious gains unions fought for back then are now requirements in law. Todays issues have to do with relatively less critical things - tenured job security; niggling and restrictive work rules and other like matters offering relatively less meaningful benefit and more adverse competitive economic side effects. The unions too have evolved into self-serving parasites that too often end up destroying the institutions they infect. Our public schools are a good example.

Businesses have to win their customers every day - no guarantees are involved. Those that don't do this dissappear and are replaced with others that succeed. That's how nature works.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It was a hard bloody fight for unions to get established. I suspect it will be as rough to get them re-established.

if the gop kills the unions and I hope they do only because the union divede the working class and only half unite those in the union ,then they are dead....every effective tool the workers found to bring employer to bay has been tossed by the court.. all the unions have now is the strike... it does not work. People have to eat.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe Joe from Chicago would attribute that to a rational response to the perverse "freeloading " impulse of humanity. However that impulse didn't inhibit the formation of unions here a century ago in the face of then very serious and often thuggish opposition from their original targets in the coal and steel industries.

That's because the early unions didn't have a free rider problem. In the early days, if a union was actually successful in negotiating a contract, it could impose a closed shop. An employee either became a member of the union or else didn't get the job. That hasn't been the case since 1947. You evidently didn't get the memo.

1 Reply

Not only dident George get the memo but he dosent read much history. When unions were trying to establish themselves the christian business leaders of the early 1900s established a police force that not only beat the hell out of anyone who wanted a union but killed many of the union leaders. Wonder how long it will be before we get back to this business practice, if were not already there.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I believe Joe from Chicago would attribute that to a rational response to the perverse "freeloading " impulse of humanity. However that impulse didn't inhibit the formation of unions here a century ago in the face of then very serious and often thuggish opposition from their original targets in the coal and steel industries.

That's because the early unions didn't have a free rider problem. In the early days, if a union was actually successful in negotiating a contract, it could impose a closed shop. An employee either became a member of the union or else didn't get the job. That hasn't been the case since 1947. You evidently didn't get the memo.

You are quibbling. Are the public schools of Illinois effectively closed shops controlled by the AFT? Is GM a closed shop also effectively controlled by the UAW? The answer is yes in both cases.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are quibbling.

I'm not sure why you would consider the law to be a "quibble." That you do so in practice, however, is evident from your refusal to report flagrant violations of the labor law to the proper authorities, even when those violations are directed at you.

georgeob1 wrote:

Are the public schools of Illinois effectively closed shops controlled by the AFT?

No. The Chicago Teachers Union contract with the Chicago Public School system, the largest in the state, expressly states that there is no discrimination between members and non-members of the union (Sec. 1-4) and that non-union members will have fair share payments deducted from their paychecks (Sec. 1-8.2) -- that's because Illinois is not a "right-to-freeload" state.

georgeob1 wrote:

Is GM a closed shop also effectively controlled by the UAW?

No. As I've mentioned before, there are no closed union shops. They're illegal. If you have any knowledge of one, I can't imagine why you wouldn't file a complaint with the NLRB.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

OK, Illinois public school teachers can quit the union, but they are required to pay dues to it as a precondition of employment.

I'm quite sure there are no non UAW assembly line workers in GM (or none still alive). If I'm not mistaken this indeed is a feature of the GM CBA with the UAW.

It certainly was the case in the companies I ran in Colorado and Washington (although we eventually broke the union (Steelworkers) by entering into "secret" negotiations with the Building trades, then under Bob Georgine under the guise of a technicality regarding who had proper jurisdiction. Under the threat of real competition they suddently became slightly less unreasonable.

You are quibbling with respect to the effective monopolies currently enjoyed by these unions..

1 Reply

The War on Labor Unions is a War on All of Us

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know