Replies

John O: If it weren't for the fact that unions exist only to deprive the business owner of his property you would be right.

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?