Posted on 10/30/2003 10:50:34 AM PST by proud_member_of_ VRWC
It would be difficult to argue that labor unions haven't done a lot of good for American workers. But have they got a little too much power now? They may be interfering with companies' abilities to compete -- and perhaps investors should consider unions when evaluating companies.
By Selena Maranjian (TMF Selena) October 30, 2003 I've long supported unions. I've even belonged to two -- when I was a high school teacher and when I was a university administrative worker. (For the record, the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers had some great songs.) But in recent years, I've come to doubt my pro-union convictions. Permit me to share some of my thoughts and then to solicit your thoughts. I suspect that many who read my words are much more informed about and experienced with unions than I am.
Why unions are good In much of industrial America, workers toiled under very unsafe conditions, earning extremely low pay and enjoying little to no legal protection. Unions were successful in bringing about many improvements for such workers, such as more reasonable working hours. They have generally served workers well by helping them avoid being exploited by employers. Even in these days, unions have a strong impact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union members in 1999 had median weekly earnings of $672 (that's $34,944 per year) while non-union workers had median weekly earnings of only $516 ($26,832) (source).
Why unions are problematic Much as I'd rather not accept it, while unions have done a lot of good and have helped workers avoid exploitation, they also seem to have helped workers exploit employers. Perhaps it has been a gradual shift over time, with unions slowly accumulating more and more power. (Perhaps not -- again, I welcome your thoughts.)
Unions can have the power to impede a company's ability to compete and thrive. A firm might be in desperate trouble, yet its unions may be unwilling to bend or compromise in order to help the company survive. Many employers find themselves left very inflexible when they have union contracts to abide by.
Some more problems with unions:
Anti-competitiveness. The Socialstudieshelp.com website suggests that, "unions… are victims of their own success. Unions raised their wages substantially above the wages paid to nonunion workers. Therefore, many union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and nonunion producers."
A decline in the value of merit. In many union settings, workers can't advance much or at all on their merits, but must generally progress within the limits defined by union contracts. Employers may have trouble weeding out ineffective employees if they belong to unions. In theory, at least, unionized workers might become so comfortable and protected that they lose the incentive to work hard for their employer. And outstanding employees might lose their get-up-and-go if there's no incentive to excel -- or worse, if they're pressured by the union to not go the extra mile. Here's a webpage detailing some other union drawbacks.
Is there a problem? So there's both good and bad associated with unions. I suspect that most businesses, and even many or most investors in said businesses, would prefer that the businesses be union-free. But that's easier said than done.
Is ownership an answer? One strategy for companies to avoid unions taking hold on their premises might be to ensure that as many of their workers as possible are as satisfied as possible. That's simple and makes sense, but it can become mighty difficult to maintain as a company grows huge. Another option is to convert employees into owners -- via stock ownership or profit-sharing, for example. If workers have a real stake in a firm's bottom line, they may be more sympathetic to management's point of view and more eager to work extra hard to help the firm succeed.
That's not a perfect solution, though. Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX), for example, is known for awarding stock options. Yet some of its workers in the U.S. and Canada have organized into unions, while others would like to.
Consider also Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV), which has long made employees part-owners via profit-sharing and stock options. It hasn't escaped having unions in its midst. Yet, as this Foundation for Enterprise Development case study notes, "A few years ago the pilots' union at Southwest struck an extraordinary deal with the airline to freeze wage increases for 10 years in exchange for an increased proportional allocation of stock options. The flight attendants' union has since also signed a similar agreement that is unprecedented in the industry." And Southwest has continued to thrive in its notoriously tough industry.
American Airlines, whose parent company is AMR (NYSE: AMR), also decided to issue stock options to its employees, making the announcement in April -- and just a week or so ago it reported a long-elusive (though tiny) profit. Are the two items related? Perhaps, at least to some degree. Though it's worth pointing out that stock options aren't necessarily always attractive. If they're for stock of a shaky company in a wobbly industry, they may not be worth much at all. (Bill Mann noted earlier this year why investors might want to walk away from American Airlines.)
The healthcare crisis If ownership isn't the best answer, perhaps healthcare coverage might be. Along with compensation issues, healthcare is a major factor in the recent strike of grocery workers in California. The unions don't want to lose ground on the healthcare package workers currently receive. The grocery chains are crying that they're being pinched as they fight the threat of Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) -- yet some have been recording increases in sales and earnings lately. Kroger (NYSE: KR), for example, posted a 3% increase in sales and a 16% increase in earnings between fiscal 2001 and 2002.
What's really going on? I suspect that both sides fear a slippery slope: Workers fear that if they give in a bit on healthcare, they'll eventually lose it all. (And with healthcare costs skyrocketing lately, that's a valid concern.) Employers fear that they're already on a slippery slope as they fight the encroaching behemoth that is Wal-Mart.
The Wal-Mart situation Wal-Mart itself is interesting, when you consider unionization. Thus far, in its not-that-short history, it has escaped having most of its workers belong to unions. But a passionate fight is being waged right now, as workers struggle to establish a union.
This raises interesting questions for us investors: Should we root for the union, as it might lead to more livable wages for employees and might keep more of Wal-Mart's million-plus employees enjoying healthcare benefits? Or should we root for Wal-Mart, figuring that a union will almost certainly put pressure on profits and might threaten the company's ability to sustain its track record of formidable global growth?
I'd like to tell you what I think of the Wal-Mart situation, but I can't. I'm torn. I see both sides of the issue. I wouldn't want to see Wal-Mart unduly restricted by union stipulations. I recognize that although it's enormous, its net profit margins aren't that hefty, at around 4%. That doesn't leave lots of room for adding expenses (though of course there is some room). But at the same time, I wouldn't want employees to be taken advantage of simply because Wal-Mart is big enough to do so. I admire generous companies, ones that treat their workers well. I'd want Wal-Mart to be, as many folks would argue it currently is, fair or even generous to workers. I suppose what I'd like to see is a more perfect solution than a traditional union or successful union-busting.
Questions that remain So after this brief foray into union considerations, I'm left with more questions than answers. Once more, I invite your thoughts. Please share them on our discussion board for this column -- or pop in to see what others are saying. (We're offering a painless free trial of our boards right now.) I hope to revisit this topic soon, to share some of the most compelling responses of yours that I read. Some food for thought:
If unions are no longer so critical, should they disappear, and if so, how? They enjoy many protections by law. By what process might we become a union-free nation?
If unions are indeed still vital, how worried should we be that less than 15% of our workforce belongs to unions, and that this figure has been dropping?
If a company wants to avoid unionization, what is its best strategy?
How might unions and employers/managements better coexist, without one side exploiting the other?
How should investors view companies that have unionized workers? Fool coverage of unions If you're interested in other Fool articles that have touched on unions, look no further. Whitney Tilson recently explained how JetBlue Airways (Nasdaq: JBLU) is "JetBlue is ALPA's (the militant and powerful Air Line Pilots Association) worst nightmare, and they will do anything to unionize JetBlue." And earlier this year, I questioned whether Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) was exploiting employees and received many responses from readers.
Minimum wage laws are another thing I strongly disagree with. The only thing they do is lock people out of the labor market. They are arbitrarily set with no link to reality. Instead of hiring 6 or 7 high schoolers at $3.25 an hour the stores/restaurants can only hire two or three people at $6 or $7 dollars an hour. 4 people locked out of the workforce.
And face it, some jobs are just not worth $6 per hour. (flipping burgers etc)
The entire concept of a living wage is bogus. Wages should be set at whatever the employer and employee agree upon. The employer will get the quality of worker he is willing to pay for and the worker will get the job he is willing to work for.
If we must have minimum wage laws I think they should be set at $100.00 per hour.
I think originally unions were established to do more than just steal from owners. If you really believe that this is the only purpose of unions or organized labor in general then you should visit a shop floor in Southeast Asia. The Wobblies and AFL-CIO are a bunch of thieves today, sure, but unions also exist to prevent some business owners from establishing 'company town' conditions that effectively turn worker into serf. I'm not saying all or even many would, but some did, and unions really strengthened because of the owners that treated their workers poorly.
If every union had a no strike clause and every union did not defend slovenly work by it's members, and every union only served as a collective, but non-binding, conract vehicle then unions would be OK.
So are you saying you'd mandate government intervention into the right of businesses to collectively negotiate with their workers? You'd mandate union laborers be forced to work regardless of their contract status? If that's what you're saying, you're not a conservative or even Republican, and you're on the wrong board. Those ideas are antithetical to the notions of capitalism, that each person controls his own property, including his own labor. That unions 'defend slovenly work' are the direct result of labor overreaching in a backlash due to employer overreaching in at-will firing.
And expect MORE backlash to come--companies don't owe their employees any severance today if they fire an employee, but employees must give a minimum two weeks notice if they quit (which, at many companies means they'll be fired on the spot anyway). Where's the fair dealing in that? When employers treat their employees fairly and act within the law, or better, treat their employees as trustworthy human beings and give them an opportunity to share in the business's rewards, they have been and will be paid back for it in spades. When employers treat their employees like resources, they inevitably get the production and anti-free-market-legislation they deserve.
All the talk about the UAW and other unions that have priced their laborers out of the market gloss over the reality that none of us really want the $#!# repetitive jobs that most of these window-polishers and handle. I couldn't do the jobs these poor bastards do even for the money they make for more than a year before I went nuts from boredom.
As it is they are all criminal enterprises...
Really? Every union in the world is a criminal enterprise? Wow, aren't we eager to judge! In your world, there must be an awful lot of criminals. We should lock up the schoolteachers first, I suppose.
and are anti-biblical.
If you want to read a part of the Bible that's important, read the part that Christ himself thought was most important--the Golden Rule. Do you REALLY think that spouting something like that, that unions are 'anti-biblical,' is doing unto others? What American union today speaks against the Bible? NONE, for good reason, that most union members consider themselves Christian and wouldn't stand for it!
That unions collectively bargain has nothing to do with the Bible, though you will undoubtedly attempt to bend some chapter and verse to 'prove' your silly claim. The Devil can quote scripture for his purpose.
But, PLEASE, don't try to make this claim again: Matthew 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
That's not about labor unions, no matter what you're trying to twist it to say. It's about those coming late to the kingdom of God being shunned by those who have come early, not collective bargaining! Stop trying to blasphemously bend God's words to your earthly purposes!
Whenever people collude to deprive someone of their property (as unions always do)
If I agreed with you, your conditional would apply. But I don't. But let's assume they are colluding to deprive a company of money, i.e., wages, for your purposes. What happens, according to your conditional?
then they are committing organized theft no matter what you call it
That is organized THEFT, you say? So if everyone in town decided not to buy from a particular store collectively, that would be the same thing, in that they deprive a business of something they would otherwise have. Or if everyone in town decided not to buy a certain product that would otherwise be something they would normally use, it would be the same thing, theft. Or better yet, if I decide I'm not going to work for an employer any more because I don't think he's paying me or treating me well, I am personally stealing from him.
Right. And pigs fly.
Collective decisionmaking is no worse or better than individual--it is more dangerous, to be sure, because ten people who light a match in a room with a gas leak are more likely to blow up the building than one person with a match. But danger isn't a reason to impose the sort of anti-labor laws that your complaints seem to espouse. Unless you're eager to play soccer mom, which wouldn't at all surprise me. 'I don't like it, we should pass a law.'
Don't get me wrong, I would repeal most labor and wage and hour protections--but I won't interfere in the right to contract just because I don't like the results. All people should have the right to determine what they do with their property, including their labor, because be they workers, managers, owners, or slackers, the most efficient members of society will rise. Saying that we should prevent a worker from discovering the most effective way of securing their labor's just reward, be it collective negotiation or one-on-one negotiation or auctioning their services or temping, is essentially saying that for people to want to gain the maximum personal benefit for their labor is theft. I know you don't believe that. I HOPE you don't believe that.
CSM:
You are very misinformed. Each new model year an assembly line is revamped to maximize efficiency. If an investment is shown to be paid off over time then it will be made to allow for greater efficiency.
This doesn't discount what I say at all. The efficiency of a revamped line built on a 20th century factory floor is different from one built to fit.
Of course all of that is limited to what the UAW will allow!
THAT I agree with. I'm not saying unions cause no problems for productivity, just that measuring productivity on the basis you prescribe isn't entirely accurate.
If the efficiency is seen as detrimental to the union, then they will not allow it to take place. If the plant can become more efficient while avoiding layoffs the union will allow it to happen. That hinders productivity and it is no surprise to me that it takes Ford or GM twice as many "man hours" to produce a unit than the transplants.
Why would they let the company sacrifice their members for efficiency when their intention is to represent the workers? If the company thinks it can do better, it should. That's what the free market is about. To say unions are at fault for trying to maximize their income for their property (their labor) is to say only factory owners should get reward for their risk-taking. Working 8 hours a day is lost opportunity doing something else. It's a smaller risk than a factory owner's, to be sure, but the factory owner also knows his risks going in and acts to minimize them. If he doesn't, he's not much of a businessmen and the assets he holds would be used better elsewhere.
Whenever the UAW tries to infiltrate the transplants they have failed. Proof that unions are bad!
Not at all. That UAW can't 'infiltrate' new companies isn't necessarily because all unions are bad. UAW can't 'infiltrate' China, either, and there, unions would do much good to alleviate poor worker treatment. United Mine Workers could do even more there, and they can't 'infiltrate' China, either. Neither of those things speak to the evil of unions, but to the evil of Chinese totalitarianism in preventing workers from getting their just rewards (and preventing workers from even assuring their own continued ability to earn under safe conditions). I think that in the case of the UAW in the U.S., there is a better conclusion than the one you leap to: it's proof that auto companies having dealt with unions know that they must treat their workers better and give them a sense of ownership and benefit from the company's growth, to avoid the workers' ultimate approbation, that of forming a union.
Have you ever been in the parking lot of a UAW OEM Assembly Plant? Have you ever been in that same parking lot at lunch? Try it some time, you would be surprised. The amount of alcohol drank and MJ smoked would shock you. The number of people sitting around during a work day would shock you.
I don't think it would, because if I worked a line all day, I'd want to be narcotized, too. But I have no idea what your point is. That workers for the UAW are druggies, so they shouldn't be members of unions? More likely, they are so drugged-up-stupid they can't negotiate well for themselves, and thus would best be served by joining a union to have someone else negotiate for them. Is that wrong, that they seek what they believe is their best chance of maximizing their income? Or is your point they are bad workers? If that's it, that's again the fault of the management for allowing a contract that stifles their power too much.
Let me give you a concrete example: Suppose a line goes down on Monday and the number of units produced falls short of the required number of units. That production is made up on the next day. Now imagine that the same shift is able to make their Tuesday production goal 2 hours early on Tuesday. What would you imagine that they do? Wouldn't you think that they just work straight through to make up the loss of production on Monday? Nope, they shut down until their shift ends and work the extra production on OT. Another 2 hour loss of productivity.
Gee, that sounds like a really stupid auto company, agreeing to that contract. But they did. Seems as an stockholder in that company like I'd rather move production to China, or renegotiate the contract, before I'd sign that kind of agreement. Oops, maybe I was supposed to conclude that we should make those damned union slackers pay somehow? Maybe force them to work for the benefit of the owner without compensation? That would sure be a conservative thing to do, take from one person and give it to another in the interests of 'fairness.'
This is just one example, add lack of flexibility, job classification, paying for UAW reps that are not producing, etc. and it is clear that the transplants have a huge advantage over the US OEM's. That is a big reason why the big 3 market share is declining while the number of vehicles sold increases.
No argument. We agree that the greed of unions is a force in shutting down American manufacturing. But don't put it all on the unions--the UAW didn't just wave a magic wand, shout Kazaam, and it was done. Management agreed to this stupid horse$#!#, too. THEY are the ones that should be paying for this the most, with their heads, as most managers are NOT owners but hired guns, and what happens is...nothing. Yet I hear consistent cries about unions being evil here, when collective bargaining isn't the root of the problem, it's pisspoor supervision by stockholders and management agreement with union leaders' unreasonable demands. They are ALL at fault, yet no one here seems nearly as eager to string up the weasels at the top as they do the weasels at the bottom. Why is that, do you think, because they are certainly MORE culpable!?!?
Yes, this is not the only reason, it is just one of the top 3.
Gosh, what are all the rest? I can hardly wait.
I can't think of any instance where unions are a benefit to our economy.
One benefit unions are to our economy: they are a channeling of greed, one that makes employee avarice every bit as transparent as employer avarice. And plainspoken wants are important to the market. If there is a want, the market will provide it efficiently only if it isn't hidden. Laborers who don't speak up won't get their interests met, and companies have an interest in attracting good workers. Yes, GREED IS GOOD--it means the market will quickly provide a supply to profit from that greed, which is why laws against price-gouging are stupid, and subsidies ultimately inefficient.
Certainly, in an ideal workplace, we wouldn't need unions, there would be no cartels and collusion, and the marketplace would invisibly swat the unproductive. But greedy owners and lazy stockholders are as unproductive as unions. What benefit is added to the economy by stockholders who don't watch the bottom line? What benefit is added to the economy by managers who make money for themselves but not for their company?
Click on the links I provided.
Biblical references are provided as footnotes at the end of each encyclical.
You can spend a little time reviewing the references I provided in reply #47 as well.
Correct. At one time unions were necessary, when mobility was limited and workers didn't have any other choices, in order to keep management from getting heavy handed. Those days are long gone and now unions only exist to steal the owners property (more on this later). Workers can easily relocate and find other jobs. (or they would be able to if the unions had not have run lots of industry out of the country)
So are you saying you'd mandate government intervention into the right of businesses to collectively negotiate with their workers? You'd mandate union laborers be forced to work regardless of their contract status?
I never said that. I said no strike clause in the contract. If the worker doesn't show up for work without a valid excuse then he gets fired and the owner can hire someone else with out the rest of the workers getting their undies in a knot. Now however, the whole workforce can walk off and prevent the owner from hiring replacement workers to run his operation. By striking they are interfering with his right to use his property as he wills. They are stealing from him.
Workers cannot be forced to work. Owners should not be forced to retain people who walk out on them.
(BTW what we really need is for gov to stop intervening in the worker-employer relationship. Now the gov forces the owner to deal with unions)
Those ideas are antithetical to the notions of capitalism, that each person controls his own property, including his own labor.
And workers striking (thus stealing time and moiney from the employer) are interfering with the owners control of his own property. if they want to leave work, great. Walk out and don't come back. But don't try to blackmail the owner into giving increased wages etc by trying to destroy his business.
That unions 'defend slovenly work' are the direct result of labor overreaching in a backlash due to employer overreaching in at-will firing.
If I own the company I have the only say in who works there. If I treat my employees well I'll have great employees (because the good ones will stay and the bad ones will get fired). If I treat my employees poorly I'll have poor employees (because the good ones will leave and I'll get stuck with the bad ones or none at all). No union or gov intervention is required. Poor management brings its own punishment and that punishment should not be having a group of people trying to destroy your business
companies don't owe their employees any severance today if they fire an employee, but employees must give a minimum two weeks notice if they quit (which, at many companies means they'll be fired on the spot anyway).
Say What? Severence pay is totally bogus as is a two week notice. Severence pay in almost all cases is a result of union or gov blackmail. Two weeks notice has no contractual or legal basis. If I choose to leave, I just leave, How can anyone force me to work?
When employers treat their employees fairly and act within the law, or better, treat their employees as trustworthy human beings and give them an opportunity to share in the business's rewards, they have been and will be paid back for it in spades. When employers treat their employees like resources, they inevitably get the production and anti-free-market-legislation they deserve.
Exactly correct. And the reason that unions are not needed in this day and age. (BTW anti-free-market legislarion should never happen under any circumstances. The market itself will weed out the poor managers)
Every union in the world is a criminal enterprise?
Every union that strikes or requires all employees to join, yes.
Wow, aren't we eager to judge!
Calling an apple an apple is not judging
We should lock up the schoolteachers first, I suppose.
Actually, for those who are die hard NEA members, I'd vote for execution. They are destroying our country and killing our children by indoctrinating them with liberal ideas such as homosexuality and abortion rights. Any member of the NEA who pays dues without protest should be permanently barred from any contact with children. Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse
If you want to read a part of the Bible that's important, read the part that Christ himself thought was most important--the Golden Rule.
Christ thought the entire bible was important, after all He wrote the whole thing (By inspiring men to write down what he revealed to them).
But lets look at the "golden rule". I'm assuming you are referring to Mark 12:30-31:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Love thy neighbor as thyself. Note that it doesn't say "gang up on your neighbor with a bunch of other thugs and deprive him of the ability to make a living with his own property". Nor does it say "threaten to destroy your neighbor unless he pays you better".
What American union today speaks against the Bible? NONE, for good reason, that most union members consider themselves Christian and wouldn't stand for it!
The NEA speaks agains the bible. Most unions preach forced socialism or forced communism which are both anti-biblical concepts. But this is beside the point.
The point I am making is that the very existence of a labor union is anti-biblical. There is no support for forced collective bargaining in the bible and where labor is mentioned it is always a contract between the owner and the worker.
That unions collectively bargain has nothing to do with the Bible,
Exactly, as collective bargaining has no standing in scripture.
But, PLEASE, don't try to make this claim again: Matthew 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
That's not about labor unions, no matter what you're trying to twist it to say. It's about those coming late to the kingdom of God being shunned by those who have come early, not collective bargaining! Stop trying to blasphemously bend God's words to your earthly purposes!
It's about both. If you would read the whole bible you'll find that extorting someone out of their property is not allowed
So if everyone in town decided not to buy from a particular store collectively, that would be the same thing, in that they deprive a business of something they would otherwise have.
No. But if they blocked his doors and didn't let anyone else buy from there it would be theft. You are not forced to shop anywhere just like you are not forced to work anywhere. But you never have the right to stop someone else from shopping or working anywhere. Unions stop people from working unless they join the union. They stop people from working during strikes. They block the owners property and prevent him from doing business. All of these actions are different from just deciding not to shop somewhere
Or better yet, if I decide I'm not going to work for an employer any more because I don't think he's paying me or treating me well, I am personally stealing from him.
If you just leave and leave him alone it is not theft. If you stick around and try to block his business or stop others from working for him it is theft
But danger isn't a reason to impose the sort of anti-labor laws that your complaints seem to espouse. Unless you're eager to play soccer mom, which wouldn't at all surprise me. 'I don't like it, we should pass a law.'
I never said anything about imposing a law. In fact I am for repealing all labor laws now on the books, federal, state and local. Gov has no business whatsoever in the employer/employee relationship. However, laws against criminal activity (such as blocking the entrance to a factory, or hiring thugs to beat the workers) must be rigorously enforced. Almost all these labor laws are anti-business and pro-union.
All people should have the right to determine what they do with their property, including their labor, because be they workers, managers, owners, or slackers, the most efficient members of society will rise.
exactly correct
Saying that we should prevent a worker from discovering the most effective way of securing their labor's just reward, be it collective negotiation or one-on-one negotiation or auctioning their services or temping, is essentially saying that for people to want to gain the maximum personal benefit for their labor is theft.
Each person has the right to maximize the returns on their property. No person has the right to deny another person that right. Unions (as they exist today) seek to deny the owner the right to earn as much as he can. If he chooses to hire well and treat his employees well, he will prosper. If he chooses not to then the good workers will go elsewhere. It is not a unions business to run or ruin his business. If he chooses to bargain collectively with his employees for his own benefit (convenience mostly) he can. If he chooses not to bargain collectively he should be able to. Why should he be forced to do something with his property that he doesn't want to do?
First this was written in 1891 and a lot of it has been overcome by events. Conditions for workers in the civilized world have changed immensely.
From my brief study Leo seems to be saying that associations of workers for mutual aid is a good thing. This is true.
No where in the encyclical does he mention collective bargaining.
Brief summary:
Paragraphs 1-29 are mostly a debunking of socialism, a defense of private property and a declaration that man is to work.
Paragraph 30 lays out the rights and duties of workers. Paragraph 31-32 lay out the rights and duties of employers. I agree with these two paragraphs.
Paragraphs 36-43 are mostly on Christian charity (which as we all know is voluntary)
Paragraph 53 discusses the exercise of law against criminal activity such as strikes and work stoppages (among others)
paragraph 55. "But it will be well to touch here expressly on certain matters of special importance. The capital point is this, that private property ought to be safeguarded by the sovereign power of the State and through the bulwark of its laws. And especially, in view of such a great flaming up of passion at the present time, the masses ought to be kept within the bounds of their moral obligations. For while justice does not oppose our striving for better things, on the other hand, it does forbid anyone to take from another what is his and, in the name of a certain absurd equality, to seize forcibly the property of others; nor does the interest of the common good itself permit this. Certainly, the great majority of working people prefer to secure better conditions by honest toil, without doing wrong to anyone. Nevertheless, not a few individuals are found who, imbued with evil ideas and eager for revolution, use every means to stir up disorder and incite to violence. The authority of the State, therefore, should intervene and, by putting restraint upon such disturbers, protect the morals of workers from their corrupting arts and lawful owners from the danger of spoliation.
Paragraphs 62-66 discuss fair wages.
Paragraph 67 speaks against cruching taxes
Paragraph 68 starts the discussion on mutual aid societys and associations of workers.
Paragraph 74 "Certainly, the number of associations of almost every possible kind, especially of associations of workers, is now far greater than ever before. This is not the place to inquire whence many of them originate, what object they have, or how they proceed. But the opinion is, and it is one confirmed by a good deal of evidence, that they are largely under the control of secret leaders and that these leaders apply principles which are in harmony neither with Christianity nor with the welfare of States, and that, after having possession of all available work, they contrive that those who refuse to join with them will be forced by want to pay the penalty. Under these circumstances, workers who are Christians must choose one of two things; either to join associations in which it is greatly to be feared that there is danger to religion, or to form their own associations and unite their forces in such a way that they may be able manfully to free themselves from such unjust and intolerable opposition. Can they who refuse to place man's highest good in imminent jeopardy hesitate to affirm that the second course is by all means to be followed?
(in other words, these associations were corrupt even then and for much the same reasons)
The rest of the encyclical discussions why Catholic associations would work far better.
At no point does the encyclical discuss collective bargaining, strikes against the owners or other typical union practices. None of the biblical references given support the concept of a labor union. (They do however support the concept of a mutual aid society)
So this encyclical does not support a biblical authorization for labor unions.
Para 1-15. Praise for Leo's work
Para 16 intro
17-24 Priase for church for following Leo
25-28 Crediting Leo for all progress labor has made in the 40 years since
29-30 Crediting Leo for all progress uninons have made since 1891 (whether Catholic or not)
35 Permission for Catholics to join non-Catholic unions if those unions safeguard morality
38 Lament that there are no employer unions
40 End of intro.
Up to this point most of it was "That Leo was a great guy and his encyclical was great too"
41-43 right of the church to rule on economics
44-52 defense of private property
53-58 balance of capital and labor
59-62 current state of the worker
63-73 on wages
71 wages must be sufficient
72 Wages must not be excessive
74-76 availability of work
77 The reform of society
78-86 call to form guilds and to take back from the state the mutual support duties that the older guilds used to do
87 But these guilds must be freely associated with and one must not be forced to join
88-90 interdependence of economic and social/moral order
91-95 on syndicates (labor unions and corporations)
94 strikes and lockouts forbidden
This section is more of a definition of them as civilly recognized organizations than a endorsement of them.
96-98 working to a better social order and call to reform morals
99-104 on capitalism and state of the world
105-108 against concentration of money and power
109 the results of rampant capitalism/economic imperialism unrestrained by Christian values
110 review
111-124 socialism and communism
(discussion that socialism is incompatible with Christianity)
125-126 call for Catholics that fell into socialism to return to the church
127-131 call for social restoration
132-134 against speculative buyers and sellers
135 Lament on men falling into immorality due to their greed
(the feel I get from a lot of this is that it was addressing stock market crash type things, especially 105-108 and 132-135. people got greedy and speculated instead of worked)
136-137 cure for greed/law of charity
138-149 summary and call for revival of Catholic morals
Again, no biblical support for labor unions. The bible references given in the encyclical don't provide biblical authority for the existence of unions
Sure it does:
Paragraph 74 ...
... Under these circumstances, workers who are Christians must choose one of two things; either to join associations in which it is greatly to be feared that there is danger to religion, or to form their own associations and unite their forces in such a way that they may be able manfully to free themselves from such unjust and intolerable opposition.
The rest of the encyclical discussions why Catholic associations would work far better.
Looks to me like Leo said "Christian", not "Catholic".
But yes, Christian associations of workers.
In other words: Christian UNIONS.
Yep, just like I said. Christian unions.
Again, no biblical support for labor unions.
Yep, already pointed it out to you.
I included only section 20 as no other section touched on unions.
20. Importance of Unions
All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association, that is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour or trade unions. The vital interests of the workers are to a certain extent common for all of them; at the same time however each type of work, each profession, has its own specific character which should find a particular reflection in these organizations.
So far he is ok. Mutual aid societies are biblical, however defending the vital interests is far too open a phrase. Does defending the vital interests include killing the owner and taking his property? Or even just taking his property? The bible says thou shalt not steal.
In a sense, unions go back to the mediaeval guilds of artisans, insofar as those organizations brought together people belonging to the same craft and thus on the basis of their work. However, unions differ from the guilds on this essential point: the modern unions grew up from the struggle of the workers-workers in general but especially the industrial workers-to protect their just rights vis-a-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production. Their task is to defend the existential interests of workers in all sectors in which their rights are concerned. The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life, especially in modern industrialized societies. Obviously, this does not mean that only industrial workers can set up associations of this type. Representatives of every profession can use them to ensure their own rights. Thus there are unions of agricultural workers and of white-collar workers; there are also employers' associations. All, as has been said above, are further divided into groups or subgroups according to particular professional specializations.
So far no biblical defense of unions
Catholic social teaching does not hold that unions are no more than a reflection of the "class" structure of society and that they are a mouthpiece for a class struggle which inevitably governs social life. They are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people in accordance with their individual professions. However, this struggle should be seen as a normal endeavour "for" the just good: in the present case, for the good which corresponds to the needs and merits of working people associated by profession; but it is not a struggle "against" others. Even if in controversial questions the struggle takes on a character of opposition towards others, this is because it aims at the good of social justice, not for the sake of "struggle" or in order to eliminate the opponent. It is characteristic of work that it first and foremost unites people. In this consists its social power: the power to build a community. In the final analysis, both those who work and those who manage the means of production or who own them must in some way be united in this community. In the light of this fundamental structure of all work-in the light of the fact that, in the final analysis, labour and capital are indispensable components of the process of production in any social system-it is clear that, even if it is because of their work needs that people unite to secure their rights, their union remains a constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it is impossible to ignore it.
He seems to be living in a dream world here. Unions. at least since the fifties have always been against the owners. They have always sought to deprive the owner of his property through strikes
Just efforts to secure the rights of workers who are united by the same profession should always take into account the limitations imposed by the general economic situation of the country. Union demands cannot be turned into a kind of group or class "egoism", although they can and should also aim at correcting-with a view to the common good of the whole of society- everything defective in the system of ownership of the means of production or in the way these are managed. Social and socioeconomic life is certainly like a system of "connected vessels", and every social activity directed towards safeguarding the rights of particular groups should adapt itself to this system.
Still no biblical defense of unions
In this sense, union activity undoubtedly enters the field of politics, understood as prudent concern for the common good. However, the role of unions is not to "play politics" in the sense that the expression is commonly understood today. Unions do not have the character of political parties struggling for power; they should not be subjected to the decision of political parties or have too close links with them. In fact, in such a situation they easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the £ramework of the common good of the whole of society; instead they become an instrument used for other purposes.
And obviously unions in this country have become no more and no less than a tool of the democrat party. (still no biblical defense of unions)
Speaking of the protection of the just rights of workers according to their individual professions, we must of course always keep in mind that which determines the subjective character of work in each profession, but at the same time, indeed before all else, we must keep in mind that which conditions the specific dignity of the subject of the work. The activity of union organizations opens up many possibilities in this respect, including their efforts to instruct and educate the workers and to foster their selfeducation. Praise is due to the work of the schools, what are known as workers' or people's universities and the training programmes and courses which have developed and are still developing this field of activity. It is always to be hoped that, thanks to the work of their unions, workers will not only have more, but above all be more: in other words, that they will realize their humanity more fully in every respect.
Here he discusses more mutual aid type activities, not core union activities. I'll give him part credit for a glancing biblical defense of mutual aid societies only because the point is made in Leo's and Pius' work
One method used by unions in pursuing the just rights of their members is the strike or work stoppage, as a kind of ultimatum to the competent bodies, especially the employers. This method is recognized by Catholic social teaching as legitimate in the proper conditions and within just limits. In this connection workers should be assured the right to strike, without being subjected to personal penal sanctions for taking part in a strike. While admitting that it is a legitimate means, we must at the same time emphasize that a strike remains, in a sense, an extreme means. It must not be abused; it must not be abused especially for "political" purposes. Furthermore it must never be forgotten that, when essential community services are in question, they must in every case be ensured, if necessary by means of appropriate legislation. Abuse of the strike weapon can lead to the paralysis of the whole of socioeconomic life, and this is contrary to the requirements of the common good of society, which also corresponds to the properly understood nature of work itself.
Here we have the head of the largest Christian denomination telling people it is OK to sin by stealing. I couldn't believe he wrote this. He recognizes the biblical fact of private ownership of property and yet tells his followers to ignore what the bible says about stealing someone else's property. I've lost a lot of respect for him
Notice however that he STILL hasn't provided a biblical defense of the existence of unions
Willie, I've read all three encyclicals (my eyes hurt, these guys might have been (are) good popes but they are lousy writers, never using three words where thirty will do.) and I have yet to find the biblical authority for labor unions. I guess it's not in these three.
I suppose though that you have several more 2,000-20,000 word encyclicals for me to read that don't provide biblical authority either.
I've read the whole bible and the authority for unions is not there. Unions are anti-biblical
What part of biblical do you not understand?
OK. Let's start from scratch here. Maybe there is a different error in your thought process that needs to be corrected before we can have this discussion
Define for me how some guy sitting in Rome wearing a funny hat is the bible.
Huh? In my county, Cook county Illinois, I have never heard of a fireman or policeman who wasn't unionized.
The need for unionization as presently constructed is an anachronism and has nothing to do with protecting "rights" and everything to do with supporting laziness, incompetence, and "diversity" along with a host of leftist ideologies. It is run by a pck of left wingers who have infiltrated the top levels and convinced many unionists that the "boss" is the enemy and the boss is Republican.
Guess what? The Apollo moon landings weren't "biblical" either.
And I'm not about to waste my breath on some fringe lunatic fundamentalist who's focused on selective misinterpretation and hair-splitting.
The biblical references, as I stated before, are listed as footnotes at the end of each encyclical. More thoughtful readers may view them their if they wish. If you don't have the intellectual capacity to follow the pope's logic in applying Christian biblical teaching to more contemporary situations, that is your problem, not mine.
Furthermore, you can also take your disrespectful Anti-Catholic papal bashing and stick it where the sun don't shine.
BTW, both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were atheists. It isn't surprising at all that you worshippers of corporatism would mock moral authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.