The NZ Labour Party sell themselves as "Third way" but they're closer to the Swedish Social Democrats than the UK Labour Party. In fact NZ is closer to Sweden than the UK in general.

As this forum's probably only card carrying teamster, i have to say not-crap. If it were not for the union, we would be paid less, have less benefits, and have no recourse if we got canned.

The one thing that is bad about a union is that you always have a few workers who suck and don't care and it makes it hard to fire them. These bad union workers in any union make everyone else look bad, and allow union haters to paint all workers with this wide brush.

Unions are so powerful and threatening to large companies, that walmart just went and closed a store in canada that unionised, rather than have a union store. Crazy.

I have to agree with CapnReverb. Not a member myself (I was Management...), but I've worked in conjunction with unions my entire (18 year) professional career. The United Steel Workers of America and assorted construction trades unions to be specific. Steel mills are extremely dangerous environments, and organized labor is largely responsible for making sure that the Company keeps it's workers safe; or at least provides a safer work environment for those on the floor. I'm pretty convinced that if it was up to the folks flying desks, there'd be more fatalities in our industry than there already are. People who don't or won't get dirty for a living just have no appreciation for the hazards that those of us on the floor experience on a daily basis. I've seen too many people get hurt even following the safety rules, and I'd hate to work in a heavy manufacturing facility that didn't have the influence of Organized Labor to prod the Company into continuous improvement.

The slugs in the gang can be a problem, but you get that anywhere. Even in the Management ranks there are useless bodies that seem to hold their jobs regardless of what mayhem they may cause. Believe me, the workers in the gang know who's fucking the dog, and while the dead weight does get some protection in regards to their overall employment, they get none in the locker room or at shift relief time. The union "takes care of it's own" in more than 1 way...

Teamsters Local 743 in Chicago (once part of Hoffa's fiefdom, I'm told) just elected a reform slate against all odds. As a Teamster I spoke with said, "this is like a social-democrat getting elected in Alabama, in the 50's." Meanwhile the old guard is draining the coffers before being forced out of office in January.

Where I'm at, the student-worker solidarity campaign at UChicago has empowered union members to reject the Admin's crappy offer, twice. It's the first time in the school's history that the Admin has had a contract rejected. I'm holding the orange 4% sign below.



Walking a picket with workers is a powerful experience. Solidarity, she is too beautiful to know. UChicago students (mostly undergrads) have worked closely with progressive elements of the union, planning rallies, making all signs, booking lunch-hour meeting rooms on campus (which workers of course can't do), etc. It's very cool.

A lot of people fought very hard and sometimes died (usually at the hand of Henry Ford's goons) to secure these rights. This, to me, is so beautiful and sad and in no way CRAP.

Perfect.

Salut, unions. But you should have struck for your air traffic controlling brethren!

Ooo, that Reagan!

I don't understand this sort of notion that there is any sort of right to a job.

Why is it a bad thing that an employer can fire you at any time for any reason, or that I can leave an employer at any time for any reason?

Andy -

There's a big difference between being a boss and working for someone. The more that a particular labor market is a buyer's market (say, for example, a coal mining town), the more acutely this difference is felt. Workers collectively sharing their risk - to use a market based turn of phrase - evens the score a bit. The basic power of a Union comes from toeing this line: collective political (voting together) or economic (striking) action. What's the problem with that?

And the results have proven true over time. Sure, you've got the 5 day workweek, 8 hour day, child labor laws, a broad middle class and a real potential basis for a base for good leftist poltics. What's on the other side? Popular spoon fed myths of corruption. The spectre of forced inefficiency. Whispers of thuggery.

Look, I've been on the receiving ends of several anti-Union campaigns by very well-paid Jackson Lewis cocksuckers who will promise you that voting Union means giving Tony Soprano your paycheck. I can tell you this - the self interest data for people faced with the choice of going Union or not is overwhelmingly pro. Anecdotes and Randian philosophy aside: an 1199 nursing assistant in NYC working at a nursing home gets a starting salary somewhere around $14.00 an hour, fully paid health insurance and a benefits package that beats almost anyone who doesn't wear a tie to work. Oh, and a collective bargaining agreement that punishes their employer for fucking with them. Hop across the Hudson to someone doing the exact same work in Fort Lee - important stuff like caring for people after their family can not care for them any longer, trying to bring a dignified death to people on a weekly basis all while working in one of the most physically dangerous jobs in the country - and you'll fine people making $8.50/hour to start with no benefits and the daily threat that they could be fired before the end of their shift for no reason. What could possibly force anyone to accept such a choice?

Answer that question and you've answered your own.

= Justin

None of that addressed my point of puzzlement, which was "I don't understand this sort of notion that there is any sort of right to a job."

Andy wrote:None of that addressed my point of puzzlement, which was "I don't understand this sort of notion that there is any sort of right to a job."

Who says there is?

Josef K wrote:

Andy wrote:None of that addressed my point of puzzlement, which was "I don't understand this sort of notion that there is any sort of right to a job."

Who says there is?

Everyone else in the thread who uses phrases like "fear that you may be fired at the end of your shirt" or "no recourse if you get fired."

Andy wrote:None of that addressed my point of puzzlement, which was "I don't understand this sort of notion that there is any sort of right to a job."

I don't see this notion out there. Do you mean "job" or "terms of a job"?

Unions and related US labor laws don't say "you must employ us" they say "employees must be treated X, notified Y, collectively bargained with, etc."

I don't think I've met a union member who felt they had a right to a job. Instead, on the matter of rights, they felt that they had the right to negotiate collectively a contract that determines terms and descriptions of a job.

I'm sure some unionists take issue, and use the notion of a "right to a job" as a rhetorical point. But it's not in my reading of labor history that the common substance of labor contract negotiations include grants of employment to laborers. The fighting is over terms of that work, not over the demand "you must employ us."

-r