I gave myself a gold star for staying out of this thread.
It's stuck on my monitor.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
GC employees unionizing...
- Thread starter chicago_mike
- Start date
I gave myself a gold star for staying out of this thread.
It's stuck on my monitor.
It's obvious here that there are two entrenched camps. Those that recognize the utility of unions and those that wish to see them disappear. I, for one, grew up with a father that believed unions to be a cancer of the working force. He was a salary man in the automotive industry for his whole career (and is now retired with a good pension and benefits). Because of his own individual experience, he came to this conclusion. However, in his retirement, his tune has changed. He sees all the jobs that have been shipped overseas and realizes that in a lot of ways, it was industry that lobbied the government to keep import tariffs ridiculously low and it was industry that lobbied for tax loopholes that favored an 'off-shore' model, and as a result it became cheaper to manufacture goods and services overseas and ship them back to the US, therefore leveraging workers (i.e. unions). The result is more desperate workers working lower wages, a general dismantling of representation, and the ability for industry to render local labor obsolete in many instances.
The whole notion of letting capitalism ride unchecked, letting the market determine wages, etc, is ridiculous, because now you pit an individual against an organization. No matter how small, this organization (the employer) is essentially part of a larger organization large enough to manipulate the government in it's favor (If you think about it, these large corporations that lobby for favorable tax-codes and low import tariffs (that also benefit the smaller organizations) are very similar to a union and it's process of collective bargaining, except this union is made up of corporate personhood, not real individual personhood... but that's about as far as we need to get down the political aspect of this
). When you factor in the above leverage (and remove the laws associated with a minimum wage) you could essentially, pay a person no wages, if they agree to it. So for example, let's say you're a worker that comes from one of those countries where slack labor laws have allowed US companies to exploit cheap labor. You somehow manage to get into the US, the land of the free. You can't work here. So you agree to work for free, in return for an H-1 visa sponsorship. So now you're working for a company so that you can simply stay in the country. Well the employer realizes that since they're not paying this guy any money, that they would need to feed him, so they agree to give him room and board. Notice I didn't say health care? That's because employers can opt to take out insurance policies on you if you die, and in many cases, the payout for your death is worth more than the business you generate for the company when you're alive. The only difference between this and slavery, is that this worker can leave the situation if they want to (except they wouldn't be able to work anywhere because the H-1 visa sponsorship only works for that particular company so they are heavily persuaded to stay in this situation - btw this is happening in the US as we speak in industries like agriculture - but I do believe they are paid a wage (but room and board is deducted from that wage)).
So we can all see that the flaw of that hypothetical is that the dude is an illegal alien. We can all say that this dude is illegal and he shouldn't be rewarded for entering the country illegally, and this is his plight. But let's imagine if he wasn't illegal. Let's imagine if this same opportunity was available to him as a citizen. You have no job, can't find a job, but need a place to stay and you need food . If you eliminate minimum wage, and all the 'hand-outs' like food stamps, then something like this model becomes the market determined minimum wage, and you would perpetually have a segment of the population in servitude to some corporation. This becomes the entry level for self-imposed servitude created by a labor market created by the same organization structure mentioned above. If you start eliminating minimum standards for an employment agreement, you start venturing into situations that challenge human rights and dignity, because if you leverage the situation enough, you can create enough desperation to create a free, expendable workforce.
The United States created it's set of labor laws (including the minimum) wage to prevent situations like this (which was happening in the Great Depression), because the United States felt that it was a better, more humanistic country and that it should provide for it's citizens (including the poor - hell, this sentiment is even written on our Statue of Liberty). The labor laws, including the minimum wage, are part of the economic infrastructure that accommodates business. I see them as something that is just as integral as the system of public highways and roads that corporations utilize when doing business.
Unions, in my opinion will not go away, because there will always be a need for labor. As long as there is labor, there will be a need to organize. In fact, the more a government, or corporations pushes against organized labor, the more they incite the creation of organized labor. I love it when people argue that they don't need a union, or they successfully work in a company that does not have a union, because they fail to see that they are also organized. In most cases, their organization, the structure of their workday, sick leave, hours they work, days out of the year they work, etc are all the result of labor organizing into a voice to set forth certain demands at some point in history. You, and your collective coworkers might accept your working environment, but ultimately, if your company has set up at least some kind of minimal approach to fairness, safety, and wages, and you and your coworkers continue to work there believing that while it might not be perfect (no company is) that it is at least acceptable, then you are participating in organized labor. It has been you, and your coworkers that have decided this, either implicitly or more directly as an organized bargaining unit. This includes business owners and employers who have decided to adhere to the set of rules and laws in regards to labor (which essentially came from organized labor), or who have chosen to go beyond the minimum, because it is beneficial to their organization. Business owners choose organization, and in many cases businesses choose unions because they are the best organizations for their livelihood. Whether a group of employees choose to define things more clearly with a union depends of whether or not the employees see the need. Organizing individuals is the only way initiate large-scale change. I think Guitar Center should organize into a union. They obviously see a need. It'll be good for everyone, including the customers.
My two cents
The whole notion of letting capitalism ride unchecked, letting the market determine wages, etc, is ridiculous, because now you pit an individual against an organization. No matter how small, this organization (the employer) is essentially part of a larger organization large enough to manipulate the government in it's favor (If you think about it, these large corporations that lobby for favorable tax-codes and low import tariffs (that also benefit the smaller organizations) are very similar to a union and it's process of collective bargaining, except this union is made up of corporate personhood, not real individual personhood... but that's about as far as we need to get down the political aspect of this
). When you factor in the above leverage (and remove the laws associated with a minimum wage) you could essentially, pay a person no wages, if they agree to it. So for example, let's say you're a worker that comes from one of those countries where slack labor laws have allowed US companies to exploit cheap labor. You somehow manage to get into the US, the land of the free. You can't work here. So you agree to work for free, in return for an H-1 visa sponsorship. So now you're working for a company so that you can simply stay in the country. Well the employer realizes that since they're not paying this guy any money, that they would need to feed him, so they agree to give him room and board. Notice I didn't say health care? That's because employers can opt to take out insurance policies on you if you die, and in many cases, the payout for your death is worth more than the business you generate for the company when you're alive. The only difference between this and slavery, is that this worker can leave the situation if they want to (except they wouldn't be able to work anywhere because the H-1 visa sponsorship only works for that particular company so they are heavily persuaded to stay in this situation - btw this is happening in the US as we speak in industries like agriculture - but I do believe they are paid a wage (but room and board is deducted from that wage)). So we can all see that the flaw of that hypothetical is that the dude is an illegal alien. We can all say that this dude is illegal and he shouldn't be rewarded for entering the country illegally, and this is his plight. But let's imagine if he wasn't illegal. Let's imagine if this same opportunity was available to him as a citizen. You have no job, can't find a job, but need a place to stay and you need food . If you eliminate minimum wage, and all the 'hand-outs' like food stamps, then something like this model becomes the market determined minimum wage, and you would perpetually have a segment of the population in servitude to some corporation. This becomes the entry level for self-imposed servitude created by a labor market created by the same organization structure mentioned above. If you start eliminating minimum standards for an employment agreement, you start venturing into situations that challenge human rights and dignity, because if you leverage the situation enough, you can create enough desperation to create a free, expendable workforce.
The United States created it's set of labor laws (including the minimum) wage to prevent situations like this (which was happening in the Great Depression), because the United States felt that it was a better, more humanistic country and that it should provide for it's citizens (including the poor - hell, this sentiment is even written on our Statue of Liberty). The labor laws, including the minimum wage, are part of the economic infrastructure that accommodates business. I see them as something that is just as integral as the system of public highways and roads that corporations utilize when doing business.
Unions, in my opinion will not go away, because there will always be a need for labor. As long as there is labor, there will be a need to organize. In fact, the more a government, or corporations pushes against organized labor, the more they incite the creation of organized labor. I love it when people argue that they don't need a union, or they successfully work in a company that does not have a union, because they fail to see that they are also organized. In most cases, their organization, the structure of their workday, sick leave, hours they work, days out of the year they work, etc are all the result of labor organizing into a voice to set forth certain demands at some point in history. You, and your collective coworkers might accept your working environment, but ultimately, if your company has set up at least some kind of minimal approach to fairness, safety, and wages, and you and your coworkers continue to work there believing that while it might not be perfect (no company is) that it is at least acceptable, then you are participating in organized labor. It has been you, and your coworkers that have decided this, either implicitly or more directly as an organized bargaining unit. This includes business owners and employers who have decided to adhere to the set of rules and laws in regards to labor (which essentially came from organized labor), or who have chosen to go beyond the minimum, because it is beneficial to their organization. Business owners choose organization, and in many cases businesses choose unions because they are the best organizations for their livelihood. Whether a group of employees choose to define things more clearly with a union depends of whether or not the employees see the need. Organizing individuals is the only way initiate large-scale change. I think Guitar Center should organize into a union. They obviously see a need. It'll be good for everyone, including the customers.
My two cents
It's obvious here that there are two entrenched camps. Those that recognize the utility of unions and those that wish to see them disappear. I, for one, grew up with a father that believed unions to be a cancer of the working force. He was a salary man in the automotive industry for his whole career (and is now retired with a good pension and benefits). Because of his own individual experience, he came to this conclusion. However, in his retirement, his tune has changed. He sees all the jobs that have been shipped overseas and realizes that in a lot of ways, it was industry that lobbied the government to keep import tariffs ridiculously low and it was industry that lobbied for tax loopholes that favored an 'off-shore' model, and as a result it became cheaper to manufacture goods and services overseas and ship them back to the US, therefore leveraging workers (i.e. unions). The result is more desperate workers working lower wages, a general dismantling of representation, and the ability for industry to render local labor obsolete in many instances.
The whole notion of letting capitalism ride unchecked, letting the market determine wages, etc, is ridiculous, because now you pit an individual against an organization. No matter how small, this organization (the employer) is essentially part of a larger organization large enough to manipulate the government in it's favor (If you think about it, these large corporations that lobby for favorable tax-codes and low import tariffs (that also benefit the smaller organizations) are very similar to a union and it's process of collective bargaining, except this union is made up of corporate personhood, not real individual personhood... but that's about as far as we need to get down the political aspect of this
So we can all see that the flaw of that hypothetical is that the dude is an illegal alien. We can all say that this dude is illegal and he shouldn't be rewarded for entering the country illegally, and this is his plight. But let's imagine if he wasn't illegal. Let's imagine if this same opportunity was available to him as a citizen. You have no job, can't find a job, but need a place to stay and you need food . If you eliminate minimum wage, and all the 'hand-outs' like food stamps, then something like this model becomes the market determined minimum wage, and you would perpetually have a segment of the population in servitude to some corporation. This becomes the entry level for self-imposed servitude created by a labor market created by the same organization structure mentioned above. If you start eliminating minimum standards for an employment agreement, you start venturing into situations that challenge human rights and dignity, because if you leverage the situation enough, you can create enough desperation to create a free, expendable workforce.
The United States created it's set of labor laws (including the minimum) wage to prevent situations like this (which was happening in the Great Depression), because the United States felt that it was a better, more humanistic country and that it should provide for it's citizens (including the poor - hell, this sentiment is even written on our Statue of Liberty). The labor laws, including the minimum wage, are part of the economic infrastructure that accommodates business. I see them as something that is just as integral as the system of public highways and roads that corporations utilize when doing business.
Unions, in my opinion will not go away, because there will always be a need for labor. As long as there is labor, there will be a need to organize. In fact, the more a government, or corporations pushes against organized labor, the more they incite the creation of organized labor. I love it when people argue that they don't need a union, or they successfully work in a company that does not have a union, because they fail to see that they are also organized. In most cases, their organization, the structure of their workday, sick leave, hours they work, days out of the year they work, etc are all the result of labor organizing into a voice to set forth certain demands at some point in history. You, and your collective coworkers might accept your working environment, but ultimately, if your company has set up at least some kind of minimal approach to fairness, safety, and wages, and you and your coworkers continue to work there believing that while it might not be perfect (no company is) that it is at least acceptable, then you are participating in organized labor. It has been you, and your coworkers that have decided this, either implicitly or more directly as an organized bargaining unit. This includes business owners and employers who have decided to adhere to the set of rules and laws in regards to labor (which essentially came from organized labor), or who have chosen to go beyond the minimum, because it is beneficial to their organization. Business owners choose organization, and in many cases businesses choose unions because they are the best organizations for their livelihood. Whether a group of employees choose to define things more clearly with a union depends of whether or not the employees see the need. Organizing individuals is the only way initiate large-scale change. I think Guitar Center should organize into a union. They obviously see a need. It'll be good for everyone, including the customers.
My two cents
Awesome post!
Im not whining.
I simply stated that i dont like the fact that the union representation stole the money from me.
If two guys named Guido and Antonio showed up at your doorstep demanding money for "protection", and you had your own means of protection, you would not want to pay them the extortion fees they demand.
When they explain that if you dont pay, you will fitted with custom-fit cement shoes, then you cheerfully pay.
Is that fair?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
They're not stealing. Stealing is illegal. They're charging you for a service.
Extortion is also illegal. I don't see it as any different as moving into a building with HOA fees. They're keeping your grass mowed, garbage collected, paying for your security, whatever. You opting out isn't realistic since the landscaping guys can't skip over only your percentage of grass, the garbage collection can't sort out which items you individually put in the dumpster, and the security guard doesn't cost any less when he turns his head while walking past your unit.
If you don't like the way your HOA or your union is being run, your dues give you the right to vote and get involved to improve things.
What's better at increasing wages than unions DEMANDING it? Letting a free market decide. Scary concept for 99% of the people out there, but it works. Employers will still be forced to pay to get good workers in, and at the same time can trim the fat of crappy workers instead of keeping that crappy worker who is overpaid because a union demanded it.
Correlation vs. causation. Fair enough.
What if we could somehow show that union employees earn more than their non-union equivalent?
With more union employees, there'd be more people that were earning middle class income as opposed to working class pay, no?
Ok, but what percentage of those people would do work that actually warranted that pay? With a union demanding a certain rate, you are not promoting hard work, you are promotnig entitlement. "It's fine to screw this up, I still get 50 an hour". Screw that. Pay should be in contract between the person doing a service and the person wanting the service performed WITHOUT the entitled middle man (union) making demands.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I am going to assume you don't know how union contracts work:
1) Both sides have to agree to the terms, not just the union.
2) It contains expectations for both parties, not just the employer.
Without reading any of the thread except for the title, I would say, " unionizing for what?, another buck-fifty commission off that $99 Squier that some impoverished child was paid 35 cents to polish up for you?"
My parents described the union thing to me this way and I believe it's true.....
Back in the old days, when workers had no choice but to either take whatever job was available or starve, and just deal with whatever that meant (crazy long days, very low pay, health concerns, deaths on the job,etc.) just to feed their kids while making rich men richer while shopping at the company store, unions were a good thing and did good that neexed to be done.
Along the way, unions became just another "company store" to the point there were many industries people couldn't work in, even if they wanted to, without out paying their dues (meaning giving a portion of their money) to the union, just to be able to work. Many of these unions supported political ideas, lobbied congress, or made up a "way it should be", that they pretty much forced money out of their members to promote, whether they agreed with these ideas or not. After all, the unions had gained so much control in some industries, you couldn't even work in that field without bowing down to (and paying) them.
Nowdays, it's a mess. Unions and corporations all exploit workers just the same, and most of them are busy arguing for "workers rights", all the while they re outsourcing every damn thing they can to poor countries where they don't have the luxury of worrying about such things, whether it's the corporations manufacturing centers, or the factories where the unions have poor kids stitch their jackets together for pennies.
They're all corrupt and #@*$&/! up, and anyone who claims one is better thanthe other can't see the forest through the trees.
My parents described the union thing to me this way and I believe it's true.....
Back in the old days, when workers had no choice but to either take whatever job was available or starve, and just deal with whatever that meant (crazy long days, very low pay, health concerns, deaths on the job,etc.) just to feed their kids while making rich men richer while shopping at the company store, unions were a good thing and did good that neexed to be done.
Along the way, unions became just another "company store" to the point there were many industries people couldn't work in, even if they wanted to, without out paying their dues (meaning giving a portion of their money) to the union, just to be able to work. Many of these unions supported political ideas, lobbied congress, or made up a "way it should be", that they pretty much forced money out of their members to promote, whether they agreed with these ideas or not. After all, the unions had gained so much control in some industries, you couldn't even work in that field without bowing down to (and paying) them.
Nowdays, it's a mess. Unions and corporations all exploit workers just the same, and most of them are busy arguing for "workers rights", all the while they re outsourcing every damn thing they can to poor countries where they don't have the luxury of worrying about such things, whether it's the corporations manufacturing centers, or the factories where the unions have poor kids stitch their jackets together for pennies.
They're all corrupt and #@*$&/! up, and anyone who claims one is better thanthe other can't see the forest through the trees.
Sorry. Invalid analogy.
You have the option of not participating in the HOA by not purchasing the property.
In the case of employees overtaken by the union, theres no options available (as in the GC case outlined in the OP).
Its do or die.
Apples and Oranges.
edit: o dear...forgot the
Who is the entitled middleman? You have an employer and an employee. I get the impression that some people think that every employee on a job site has their own Perry Mason following them around negotiating every move. $50 per hr? And why do we seem to have this notion that only union members can be unproductive?
The HOA is yet another symptom of fat, lazy-ass people who don't want to do crapola other than tell their neighbor what to do while they do nothing.
As if there isn t enough rules and regulations governing every damn thing we do already. Do people really need to organize and dictate what type of fence their neighbor can build, or what color they can paint their house, or how tall (or short) they should keep their lawn, or if they even need to have a lawn?
Bullhockey, I say. People like this are meddlers. They need a stiff slap upside the head.
As if there isn t enough rules and regulations governing every damn thing we do already. Do people really need to organize and dictate what type of fence their neighbor can build, or what color they can paint their house, or how tall (or short) they should keep their lawn, or if they even need to have a lawn?
Bullhockey, I say. People like this are meddlers. They need a stiff slap upside the head.
What about the shared, common spaces that are part of condominium complexes?
They "belong" to the entire community. Who's going to mow the lawn? The guy in unit 2a? What about the slackers in unit 4c?
It's easier for the management company to hire an outside landscaping company to do the work and spread that cost equally amongst all the units.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
That is where we are today. Wages for the middle class have been stagnant while the rich have been getting richer. Workers at the bottom have been getting worse.
a) Unions are composed of elected officials. On the worst day, at least I have a vote as to who represents me in a union, whereas I have absolutely zero voice in the corporation itself unless I'm a shareholder.
b) Unions have no interest in outsourcing or treating their workers badly. At the most cynical you can realize that unions don't get dues paid by members whose jobs have been outsourced, and leadership gets voted out if they're not delivering tangible results to their people.
You have your option of not working at a union shop. There must have been some reason you chose to work there and continue to work there (I'm guessing pay and benefits) even with the additional cost of monthly dues.
The majority of the workers in that shop voted to join. That's how a majority vote works. You don't get a separate President if you don't like the one the majority voted for. You don't get a different American Idol winner if you didn't like the one that made the series finale. You don't get a separate dinner if your wife decided you're eating Italian.In the case of employees overtaken by the union, theres no options available (as in the GC case outlined in the OP).
Its do or die.
Apples and Oranges.
edit: o dear...forgot the
It's democracy. Things are rarely unanimous, and the minority doesn't always like the outcome but it's one of the fairest ways to do things.
I should go on record that I'm not advocating HOA's. I was mostly trying to make an analogy between entering into a contractual deal that's focused on benefiting everyone and because it's a communal situation, itemizing individuals out is inherently difficult.
The problem is, it doesn't work. The reason is that wages, employment, and even food, are linked together. Even a small amount of inflation gradually erodes wages. Employers also have pricing power over workers, meaning that their sheer size gives them a bargaining advantage. So there's a natural downward pressure on wages, even in a healthy economy.
There's also really no such thing as a free market.
In case you think I got this stuff from some wacko on Fox News, it's not a new idea, and in fact has been written up by economists such as Milton Friedman.
As wages fall, workers spend less. This reduces demand for goods and services, which in turn drives up unemployment. It's a vicious circle. Under the worst conditions, it can drive farms out of business, causing food shortages.
Small things can trigger big things, such as a panic on Wall Street, the collapse of a credit bubble, or a crop failure. Once the downward spiral is triggered, the so called free market can't correct it. Whatever panic led to the Great Depression, smart people noticed that conditions were ripe for widespread social unrest and the rise of parties such as the Marxists and Fascists. The food supply collapsed. This is the "free market" at play.
Smart folks realized that some intervention in the marketplace was necessary to prevent total collapse. Yet it's impossible to make the economy totally stable and fair -- the Communists thought they could achieve that -- so the next best thing is to create a safety net that gives the market flexibility and breathing room. Minimum wage laws are part of that safety net.
By the way, middle class wages have not been stagnant. They've been declining for 40 years.
Im not say unions are bad; only that some unions do bad things.
Like going on strike.
Not all workers want to strike if benefit negotiations go south. Some workers are content with the benefits they have. Not all unions do this (thankfully), however the union I was in DID in 1998. My family lost 6 week wages. Had to sent the wife and kids to the in-laws house. I couldnt feed everyone and pay the mortgage.
You cannot possibly imagine how embarrasing it was to do this. Plus I had to wheel & deal with the bank.
It was a very tough time for us all (workers affected by strike). The union cut me a check to help pay the mortgage. If I recall, the amount of the check was roughly 30% of the mortgage which helped somewhat.
And some unions (like the one i had the misfortune of being represented by) funnel funds into crooked politicians coffers.
And theres other reasons why folks shouldnt have union dues withheld from their pay by the union if they've opted out of the union., imo.
Like going on strike.
Not all workers want to strike if benefit negotiations go south. Some workers are content with the benefits they have. Not all unions do this (thankfully), however the union I was in DID in 1998. My family lost 6 week wages. Had to sent the wife and kids to the in-laws house. I couldnt feed everyone and pay the mortgage.
You cannot possibly imagine how embarrasing it was to do this. Plus I had to wheel & deal with the bank.
It was a very tough time for us all (workers affected by strike). The union cut me a check to help pay the mortgage. If I recall, the amount of the check was roughly 30% of the mortgage which helped somewhat.
And some unions (like the one i had the misfortune of being represented by) funnel funds into crooked politicians coffers.
And theres other reasons why folks shouldnt have union dues withheld from their pay by the union if they've opted out of the union., imo.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Typically unions vote before striking. If you didn't like that you went on strike, blame your coworkers, not the union.
Chances are they probably didn't want to lose that income either but decided in favor of the risk because of the long term gains.
I think we're in agreement that a union is only as bad/good as the people who are in it, much like rock bands, wrestling matches, and bass forums.
Was that before or after the federal government authorized the destruction of (literally) tons of food to keep prices high?
