What about Unions?

[Traveler]

What do you like about unions and why do we need them.  What do you dislike about unions and why do we need to get rid of them.  Or what would it take for you to want to join a union?

[yjacket]

What do you like about unions and why do we need them.  What do you dislike about unions and why do we need to get rid of them.  Or what would it take for you to want to join a union?

Nothing. They cause unemployment and are a protection racket. Nothing.

[Guest]

America has so many corporate regulations now that the need for Unions are not as critical as it was in the old days.

Unions are needed when you want to balance the power of the individual worker against the power of the employer. This becomes necessary when there is less work than there are workers so that mobility is stagnant and workers are forced to work in conditions not ideal to workers because there is nowhere else to get money from. This becomes an environment in danger of worker abuse. But, when the field is such that an employer has no other recourse but to cave in to the demands of workers because he can't find qualified, affordable, workers elsewhere, then the balance of power is tilted too much in the favor of the worker which causes economic stagnation (employers are the investors - they have the resources to make or break an economy).

In my opinion, as a government, the impetus should be to maintain a healthy economy where investors are attracted to put their businesses in your jurisdiction so as to provide as much work as there are workers. Then power of the worker and the employer can be maintained without the need for unions. If a union becomes necessary - either a worker's union (employees) or a sector organization (employers), this is an indication that the economy needs improvement.

But, as it is now in the US, the power is tilted so much to the side of the workers that even in this economy where there are a lot more workers than there is work to do, the employers are still powerless to negotiate terms because of the regulatory requirements. It's a mess, really. And this all came about because the government likes to buy worker votes.

Edited March 16, 2015 by anatess

[Blackmarch]

What do you like about unions and why do we need them.  What do you dislike about unions and why do we need to get rid of them.  Or what would it take for you to want to join a union?

they have more power than they should these days.

unions were created to counterweight the power that corporations had over workers. no idea how to get the weight to stick to the middle.

[pam]

Sitting patiently waiting for annewandering (who is very pro union) to chime in.  :)

[Vort]

People speak of "soulless" corporations. Well, duh. A corporation is a legal fiction. Of course it's soulless! It is presumed that those who own and guide the corporation use the judgment of their own souls to achieve a moral end. To fault a corporation for being "soulless" is like blaming a fish for having scales.

 

But many people have used corporations, and the corporate mindset that accompanies them*, to produce unfavorable and sometimes appalling work conditions. They have abused their employees in an unconscionable manner. Thus, unions sprang up as an entirely natural, rational, and reasonable way to curb these excesses.

 

*Not to suggest that only corporations are liable to such abuses, but that's where it's sometimes most obvious.

 

If corporations as virtual entities and legal fictions are "soulless", unions are something a bit different. They are parasitic, prone by their very nature to antagonize and eventually destroy their host business(es). In many cases, they are a "cure" that ends up much worse than the disease.

 

Those who call themselves "pro-union" do not understand what they're talking about. Being "pro-union" is like being "pro-malaria" or "pro-HIV". Diseases have their use and ultimately work toward our benefit, in fact our very being. But to adopt the attitude that diseases are just great and we need to work to make the diseases strong and more stable is lunacy.

 

Unions exist because they apparently must, because we are fallen man living in a telestial world where employers tend to make slaves of their employees. So they are a necessary evil. But never lose sight of the fact (and it is a fact) that unions are an evil.

[Traveler]

Like many here - I use to be very anti union -- that was until I met a very interesting member of the printer's union.  He gave me a whole different outlook.  The printer's union will not accept anyone that is not a skilled printer.  That should be no surprise.  What was a surprise to me is that the printer's union by-laws do not allow any union officer to make any more as a union officer that the average salary of a printer in the union.  In fact few good printer feel much cause to run for union office and take a cut in pay -- unless there is a profound issue at hand.  Then having obtained office and worked on such problem do they feel much reason to continue in office but to return to printing.  BTW I forgot to include that to hold an elected union office in the printer's union -- one must be a printer by trade.

 

The printing profession has suffered more in the past few decades than any other skilled profession but the member of the union have not wavered with their union membership as a percentage of printers.  Nor does this union seem to make much noise - other than going about their business.  I believe that for the most part we have lost sight of what unions can and should be doing for workers - even skilled professionals such as IEEE. 

 

I believe that all the arguments against unions - do not really apply to unions but the the mutant bureaucracies that have evolved out of unions in concert with our current political environment.

[Guest]

I believe that all the arguments against unions - do not really apply to unions but the the mutant bureaucracies that have evolved out of unions in concert with our current political environment.

Traveler, it is like Capitalism versus Socialism. In the whole "Perfect World" scenario - Socialism is great. But, Capitalism is better in today's world because it doesn't assume people are righteous.

This is the same way with Unions. If people were perfect, then Unions would be perfectly run. But, if people were perfect, there wouldn't be a need for Unions. So, in the whole scheme of things - Unions are useless until the balance of power shifts to make individual workers rife for abuse without any recourse.

[Guest]

Okay, there is another type of union... like the Eletrician Contractor's Union in my state. They are trade unions. They are individual electricians who are members of the Union and each individual electrician works as an independent contractor (their own small business). They formed a union so they can get discounts in health benefits, insurance, certification, advertising, etc. This is not your typical worker's union. Basically, what the union does is if one of them get sued by a client, the Union supports the electrician and pay for lawyers and the like so he doesn't go bankrupt.

This type of union is not necessarily formed to maintain a balance of power. This is simply an organization trying to support each other to make things more efficient.

Edited March 16, 2015 by anatess

[askandanswer]

Bear in mind that the following comments are made from an Australian perspective that is entirely uninformed about the American perspective.

 

1.       I imagine that unions exist because they are needed. If the need disappears, then the unions probably will as well. While the need remains, then unions are likely to. Other than heavy handed government legislation curtailing the powers of unions, which would probably cause considerable voter/public backlash, the best way to get rid of unions is to find better ways of meeting the needs that are currently met by unions.

 

2.       It is sometimes claimed by economists and business academics that some multinational corporations are more powerful than the governments of some small countries. What hope does a single individual have in negotiating for better working conditions with such a powerful entity? Surely it makes good sense when you are so hopelessly overwhelmed by an opposing power to join together with others in a similar situation so that you can do something to address the overwhelming power imbalance.

 

3.        If capital, and its representatives, are allowed to join forces, ie, Confederation of American Industry ( a made up name intended to represent lobbying organisations working on behalf of businesses) in order to more effectively lobby and influence those who can make key decisions that will affect their interests, ie, government and the legislature, then surely labour, and its representatives can join forces into a union to more effectively lobby those who can make key decisions that can affect their interests, ie, their employers.

 

4.       With business being so tightly focussed on building wealth and creating profits, an entirely valid concern, it is natural to expect that when faced with a decision that will either add to their profits or benefit their workers, for example, choosing a cheaper, but less beneficial package of health benefits, or a more expensive but more beneficial package of benefits, that the business will choose profits over people. And its natural to expect that the people might be motivated to do something about that, such as joining a union.

 

5.       If the unions become too greedy, then business can do what so many businesses have done – pack up and move overseas. Not an ideal situation for the country they move out of, and definitely a big loss for the unions and the workers, but it works well for the business, and that is what business is always looking for – what works best for itself and its owners.

 

I’m not a member of a union at present but I have been in the past. I was a member because if I got into a dispute with my employer, I was not confident that my employer would have tried hard to resolve the dispute in my favour. I’m not a union member at the moment because if I get into a dispute with my employer, I’m not confident that the union would try hard to resolve the dispute in my favour.

[Traveler]

Okay, there is another type of union... like the Eletrician Contractor's Union in my state. They are trade unions. They are individual electricians who are members of the Union and each individual electrician works as an independent contractor (their own small business). They formed a union so they can get discounts in health benefits, insurance, certification, advertising, etc. This is not your typical worker's union. Basically, what the union does is if one of them get sued by a client, the Union supports the electrician and pay for lawyers and the like so he doesn't go bankrupt.

This type of union is not necessarily formed to maintain a balance of power. This is simply an organization trying to support each other to make things more efficient.

 

This is the kind of things I wish more would think about.  Not consider that belonging to a union was voluntary.   Consider that unions have ways and means to qualify members - such and novas, journeyman, expert and master.  Novas being a beginner, a journeyman someone being tutored by a master, an expert someone proficient and well trained and a master is someone capable of training a journeyman and pronouncing them expert.

 

Think of doctors, lawyers engineers and other professionals being so rated for consumer assistance.  Companies desiring to heir could specify the proficiency desired and in advertizing their expertise could publish the percentage of expert and master professionals employed.  The a professional having difficulties could lose levels of expertise which could be reachieved through union validation and certification.  Which means someone could have pay reduced without losing their job.

 

I use to belong to IEEE for publication of various ideas I had developed or worked on.  A professional union could assist in such endeavor as well and helping prove contribution with patents.   Would I belong to such a union for engineers - in a heart beat.   But I would not belong to a union that wanted to negotiate my pay including benefits - that I want to do myself.  I may want to reference or use such a union but such things I would control myself.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

anetess wrote: “In the whole "Perfect World" scenario - Socialism is great."

 

I understand the sentiment, but I vehemently disagree with the premise. 

Socialism/Communism is nothing less than Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. Even in a "perfect world" filled with perfectly righteous people it would still be an evil system because it is hostile and contrary to the principle of agency.

 

askandanswer wrote: "Other than heavy handed government legislation curtailing the powers of unions…"

 

It was "heavy handed government legislation" which gave unions their powers in the first place!!

 

Some of you might be interested to know that at one time there was an argument within the Church as to whether or not a man who belonged to a labor union was worthy to hold a temple recommend!

 

The question was put to the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith) regarding a man who belonged to the AOUW (Ancient Order of United Workmen). 

They wrote: 

"we are not in favor of our brethren joining organizations of any kind outside of our Church. But we are more especially impressed with the wrongfulness of their joining organizations which interfere with the rights of their fellow citizens in regard to labor. To illustrate: we think it is wrong, contrary to our religion, and contrary to good citizenship, for men to combine together in any organization to prevent their fellowmen from working because they do not join them or work for such amount as they think workmen ought to have." (Development of LDS Temple Worship Vol. 3, Page 106)

 

They ultimately ruled that the man COULD be given a recommend, but their opinion of unions is interesting nonetheless.

[Palerider]

While growing up my father was a Teamster truck driver. Drove for 33yrs years. All I remember hearing in our home was Union this and Union that. He was very proud to be a union member. I on the other hand have no desire to be part of a union. I think at one time in this country they were needed. I don't see that need any longer. You rarely see unions in my neck of the woods going on strike. My opinion is that it doesn't do much good for them to do that. Here in the St Louis area where I live we had 2 car plants fold up and close down. That left lots of unemployed Union workers out of a job.

[prisonchaplain]

What do you like about unions and why do we need them.  What do you dislike about unions and why do we need to get rid of them.  Or what would it take for you to want to join a union?

 

The classic economist, Adam Smith, argued FOR unions, in his The Wealth of Nations.  His argument was that owners have capital on their side, so it was reasonable for workers to unite for negotiations of wages and benefits.  So, I support that unions exist.  Further, when stock markets rise, company profits rise, executive bonuses rise, BUT worker salaries remain stagnant, or even decrease, something seems afoul.  What I don't like is when unions use dues to support irrelevant political causes, such as abortion rights. 

[yjacket]

The classic economist, Adam Smith, argued FOR unions, in his The Wealth of Nations.

 

Too long to go into here, but Adam Smith was right on some things and dead wrong on others-on this he was dead wrong.

 

The best short book on economics:

http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson_2.pdf

 

Unions cause unemployment, period; it is a protectionist racket that for those who are a part makes very good sense (i.e. they get higher wages than they would otherwise), but for those who aren't it makes little sense (i.e. they end up being unemployed).

 

I'm okay that unions exist as long as they do not use force or coercion to exist (which most do not, i.e. if one is a teacher one must belong to the teacher's union and pay dues).

 

 

Further, when stock markets rise, company profits rise, executive bonuses rise, BUT worker salaries remain stagnant, or even decrease, something seems afoul. 

 

Well that is an entirely different phenomena known has the 1st effects of inflation. The last thing to rise in an inflation cycle is wages (b/c it is the farthest away from the money source).  The things that are closest to money generation are a) Federal Government & contractors, b) banks c) whatever banks invest in (i.e. stock market).  There is a really good reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and it's called our current monetary system, a.k.a. The Federal Reserve.

[bytor2112]

Here's a true story about how a union was formed:

 

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Edited March 17, 2015 by bytor2112

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not convinced that unions are inherently a protectionist racket.  Neither have I been dissuaded from the idea that labor should not have the right to unite for negotiations.  YPjacket seems to argue that coercion is a crucial issue.  I'm guessing that we're talking about closed shops vs. "right to work" open shops.  I'm still open-minded on the subject, but have seen reasonable accommodations in place that fall in between the two.  For example, my wife had three choices as a newly hired teacher:

 

1.  Pay a fee to the union for its negotiating work, without joining the union.  It was less than full dues, though only about 15% cheaper.

 

2.  Join the union, without donating to the union PAC (which supported politicians and issues not directly related to negotiations)

 

3.  Join the union and donate to the PAC.

 

In private industry, companies that have management/owners that don't want to work with unions simply have to maintain a satisfied-enough work force that their employees do not want to pay extra for union representation.  Coors comes to mind.

[kapikui]

Okay, there is another type of union... like the Eletrician Contractor's Union in my state. They are trade unions. They are individual electricians who are members of the Union and each individual electrician works as an independent contractor (their own small business). They formed a union so they can get discounts in health benefits, insurance, certification, advertising, etc. This is not your typical worker's union. Basically, what the union does is if one of them get sued by a client, the Union supports the electrician and pay for lawyers and the like so he doesn't go bankrupt.

This type of union is not necessarily formed to maintain a balance of power. This is simply an organization trying to support each other to make things more efficient.

Traditionally, this would be more of a guild.  Guilds have done some appalling things too. 

[Guest]

I understand the sentiment, but I vehemently disagree with the premise.

Socialism/Communism is nothing less than Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. Even in a "perfect world" filled with perfectly righteous people it would still be an evil system because it is hostile and contrary to the principle of agency.

I don't know why you think Socialism is contrary to the principle of agency. Communism, Marxism, etc. can be, Socialism is not. Socialism and Communism, by the way are two different things.

Socialism - without specific governance - is the voluntary contribution of talents to build a Society. In its nuclear form, you have the Family - somebody makes the money, somebody cleans the house, somebody cares for the children. I doubt you believe it is contrary to agency that the parents are forced to care for their children and the children are forced to contribute to the welfare of the family.

But, this is not the thread to discuss this.

Edited March 17, 2015 by anatess

[askandanswer]

Nothing. They cause unemployment and are a protection racket. Nothing.

Protection rackets are unlikely to exist if nobody needs protection although there are probably better ways in which the administration and delivery of protection could be provided.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I don't know why you think Socialism is contrary to the principle of agency. Communism, Marxism, etc. can be, Socialism is not.

 

 

I'd be much interested in a real life example of Socialism that is NOT contrary to the principle of agency.

 

You wrote: "Socialism and Communism, by the way are two different things."

 

Socialism and Communism are two sides of the same statist coin. 

I'm familiar with the argument that Socialism is an economic system while Communism is an economic/political system; that Socialism is democratic while Communism is dictatorial---yada, yada, yada. 

But in reality the distinctions are just rhetorical horse doo-doo.

 

Heber J. Grant, David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter, Marion G. Romney Harold B. Lee, and other general authorities have given talks in Conference and elsewhere regarding the evils of Socialism. 

After listening to a discourse on socialism, the Prophet Joseph Smith said he "did not believe the doctrine."

 

You wrote: "Socialism - without specific governance - is the voluntary contribution of talents to build a Society."

 

Socialism – without specific governance – is nothing less than the definition of ideal Communism; an ideal that never has and never will exist.

 

You wrote: "In its nuclear form, you have the Family."

 

A family no more resembles Socialism than the United Order resembles Communism (ideal or otherwise).

 

You wrote: "I doubt you believe it is contrary to agency that the parents are forced to care for their children."

 

Forced by whom?? 

You equated the family to "Socialism without specific governance", which begs the question--- without specific governance who does the forcing? 

Your analogy makes no sense!

 

You wrote: "But, this is not the thread to discuss this."

 

Sure, now ya tell me. 

[Bini]

Oh my gosh I read the title as "What about unicorns" and also read the thread as such until the last sentence LOL.

[Palerider]

Oh my gosh I read the title as "What about unicorns" and also read the thread as such until the last sentence LOL.

And what about unicorns ?? Lol

[askandanswer]

And what about unicorns ?? Lol

Clearly the Union of Unicorns failed. All the unicorns have now died out because their union failed to protect them. I think they were made redundant by the Fraternal Society of Rhinoceroses who have two horns instead of one,  a much tougher skin, and a much more aggressive negotiating strategy. Unlike unicorns, which tend to fly away at the first hint of danger, rhinoceroses will take any challenge head on and just crash their way through. A bit like unions.

[Guest]

I'd be much interested in a real life example of Socialism that is NOT contrary to the principle of agency.

There is this guy Volgadon who used to post here (dunno where he went). He is either Israeli or lived in Israel, I can't remember. He gave a history lesson of this city in Israel (or close to it, I can't remember) that is purely Socialistic. I tried searching for the post but I can't find it with the search keys I used. In this community, everyone works for the community. Nobody owns a specific anything but everybody owns everything. They are self-organized under the democratic government of Israel. And they're not all Jews.

 

You wrote: "Socialism and Communism, by the way are two different things."

 

Socialism and Communism are two sides of the same statist coin. 

I'm familiar with the argument that Socialism is an economic system while Communism is an economic/political system; that Socialism is democratic while Communism is dictatorial---yada, yada, yada. 

But in reality the distinctions are just rhetorical horse doo-doo.

 

Heber J. Grant, David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter, Marion G. Romney Harold B. Lee, and other general authorities have given talks in Conference and elsewhere regarding the evils of Socialism. 

After listening to a discourse on socialism, the Prophet Joseph Smith said he "did not believe the doctrine."

Like I said, Socialism does not work in a society of fallen people. Greed and self-aggrandizement will always be present and it only takes one greedy person to throw the entire system out of balance.

 

You wrote: "Socialism - without specific governance - is the voluntary contribution of talents to build a Society."

 

Socialism – without specific governance – is nothing less than the definition of ideal Communism; an ideal that never has and never will exist.

I'm not sure why you think that I say it will exist. I was VERY CLEAR on the matter that Socialism is only good in a perfect society.... which, of course, does not exist.

 

You wrote: "In its nuclear form, you have the Family."

 

A family no more resembles Socialism than the United Order resembles Communism (ideal or otherwise).

The Family IS the nuclear form of a Socialist Society. I don't even know why this is in question. I'm starting to suspect you and I are talking about two different things. Just like the American definition of Liberalism having no semblance of sense to somebody who has never heard of American politics.

 

You wrote: "I doubt you believe it is contrary to agency that the parents are forced to care for their children."

 

Forced by whom?? 

You equated the family to "Socialism without specific governance", which begs the question--- without specific governance who does the forcing? 

Your analogy makes no sense!

You're the one that says Socialism is contrary to Agency. That, to me, means you believe a Socialist society cannot exist unless the members are forced. So I broke it down to its nuclear form which is the Family... so I question what about the family is contrary to agency - or is a product of force. I posit that a family can exist without the parents having to force their children to contribute to the family nor the children force the parents to care for them. That's the essence of Socialism. Everybody contributes all their talents into the Society - nothing more, nothing less. They don't have to be forced to do so because they all aspire to the common good. Yes, it is totally impractical because, in this fallen state, doctors will murmur because they feel they contribute more than the garbage collector. And the minute that is introduced into the society, then the aspiration for the common good is eclipsed by self-aggrandizement.

Edited March 18, 2015 by anatess