The Kid wrote:

Major Major wrote:Unions of yesteryear: Awesome and I'm thankful for all that was sacrificed.

Unions today: Corrupt crap. They've become what they fought so hard against back in the day. Not needed except for giant whore companies like WalMart.

Unions now are probably less corrupt than at any point in American history. They don't have the political influence to get away with wide scale corruption, nor can they afford the bad publicity that comes with federal prosecution. If there was widespread corruption, American unions would be swimming in federal prosecutors. That's how it works when the entire federal government, including the labor department and the NLRB, is vehemently anti-union. If corporate America was held to the same accounting standards that American unions are held to, which are very strict, Tyco/Adelphia/Enron/Worldcom et.al. might not have happened. So don't give me this corporate bullshit about unions being corrupt. Stupid, inefficient, lacking in long-term strategy -- okay. But corruption is not the problem.

I've worked many jobs where, if there were a union, I probably would have had health coverage, a right to a hearing upon termination, maybe even a defined benefit pension. I certainly would have had higher wages, and my co-workers and I would have had an opportunity to bargain over the conditions of employment. Without a union, I had none of thosethings. None of those jobs were at wal-mart.
I'm not sure what's so complicated about this.

This is why I gave examples from personal experience. I definitely wasn't speaking for every union out there today. The unions I've dealt with did nothing but take dues out of every paycheck. The company I worked for got together and voted against union representation and life went on. We got raises, we had insurance and we had more money in our checks from not paying dues. This was 15 years ago and the company is still thriving today.

Tell me what the difference between being 'corrupt' and 'stupid, inefficient and lacking long term strategy' is. Is it just that the first example is wilfull and the second is more passive in screwing the worker? Sounds like the worker still gets screwed either way.

This is why I didn't vote. In some ways, unions aren't crap and they're needed very much. In my personal experience: CRAP

Unions are Not Crap.

For those paying attention in the US, there's a big fight right now in the Labor movement to change the AFL-CIO. The net effect is that the largest (and best) affiliate, SEIU, is looking to break unless there are major reforms. The AFL-CIO's focus under Sweeny has been to devote resources to politics, but the insurgent unions insist that resources should be redirected to organizing. This fight will be settled one way or the other in July. It will either mean a real change for the AFL or a quickening of its irrelevance.

I work for an SEIU local and I am proud of the work that I do. The pride doesn't come from my own performance - I know that this organization devotes its member's money to an organizing struggle to improve working conditions and benefits. The organization is working under admirable principles and the people at the top are some of the smartest people in public life today.

As for Major - years ago, unions were a collection of workers that decided on political action. As they grew, they began to take on staff and the union looked like something other than just a collection of members. This change, once things got to a certain size, was inevitable. What wasn't inevitable was the expectation that a union is a service delivery mechanism - I pay dues so give me my benefits, bargain my contract and fight for me when there's trouble at work. If you didn't like the way your chapter operated, there's no reason not to organize against it and take the damn thing over. Dues can always be money well spent, if you force it to be so. A decert is an abdication - you said you weren't interested in being organized.

I may be ideological about this, and I'm happy to argue the points. But unionism in the US is in serious decline, and it's worth challenging assumptions about what unions are about. That comment about US cars sucking because of the UAW - I sincerely disagree. What's your evidence? The implications are that the fixed cost of labor (as determined by the collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the UAW) create an unfair advantage for non-UAW competitors. This is a popular and inaccurate myth.

= Justin

Major Major wrote:This is why I gave examples from personal experience. I definitely wasn't speaking for every union out there today. The unions I've dealt with did nothing but take dues out of every paycheck. The company I worked for got together and voted against union representation and life went on. We got raises, we had insurance and we had more money in our checks from not paying dues. This was 15 years ago and the company is still thriving today.

There is no denying that some unions are more active than others. Some do more for their members, some focus more on organizing, and there is generally a tension between those two things -- current members and organizing. If you say your union did nothing, I can't really refute you, although it seems to me that even the laziest, most ineffectual union is, at worse, a bulwark against wage cuts/health coverage cuts/retirement coverage cuts/wrongful terminations. Not that cuts won't come, but there will be a negotiation in which workers will be able to have at least some kind of a voice, as opposed to what they usually have, which is nothing.

Major Major wrote:Tell me what the difference between being 'corrupt' and 'stupid, inefficient and lacking long term strategy' is. Is it just that the first example is wilfull and the second is more passive in screwing the worker? Sounds like the worker still gets screwed either way.

Corrupt involves stealing money earmarked for members' retirement plans, diverting dues to buy somebody a new boat, selling workers short in negotiations with management. If you're a lawyer/fiduciary/administrator/organizer of the union, and you're not working in the best interests of the union but rather yourself and your cronies, that's corruption.
Stupid, inefficient, lacking a long-term strategy -- this is more about the decline of the labor movement over the last 40 or so years, and labor's inability to reverse the trend. Yes, I think American workers are getting screwed because some unions, to varying degrees, exhibit these traits. They're getting screwed because less of them have the benefits of union membership. If you want to read about the decline of labor unions and the resulting effects on American workers, there's plenty of stuff out there. I'm partial to the work these people do: http://www.epinet.org/
There is currently a split taking place within the AFL-CIO between more active unions that want to focus more money on organizing and acquiring new members, and some of the more conservative unions that focus more on member services, even as the number of members decline. I'm probably oversimplifying that or getting it somewhat wrong, so don't take my word for the reasons for the split.
My thinking on all this comes from what I understand of American history, which is that workers get nothing from employers without a struggle. Regulations on workplace safety, overtime, minimum wage, child labor, family leave, and pretty much everything else that has helped to create a middle class in this country are the result of unified struggle by working people. I might sound like Marx here, but capital doesn't give these things away, and when people start taking them for granted, they begin to lose what they've gained.

is there an electrical union? that can help me sue for member cruelty?

kenoki wrote:is there an electrical union? that can help me sue for member cruelty?

I joined the musicians union last year (CFM local 55869) for some composing work I was going after. I must say I have been really surprisingly happy with this union. They seem to know we live in modern times and things are not so cut and dry. They allow members to mostly choose when the want to be affiliated and protected by the union and when they want to act as a musician in a non-union manner (with some exceptions like you can't play on a union stage which are mostly playhouses, etc). Yearly dues are still yearly dues but if I work one good union job a year as a composer it can pay for itself.

On the other hand my old job brought me WAY to close to electric unions, carpenters, teamsters, decorators, and riggers. I saw a lot of tail wagging the dog antics and in many cases it seemed to not benefit anyone BUT the union itself... not its members Very backwards and costly for all (including the workers) and seemed to show doing something with the unions is a lot about payoffs, laziness, and poor workers being protected from having to compete with better workers. I also saw much prejudiceness and racism but those surely could be specific cases and not representational of these type of unions in general.

Detractors always say, “they do nothing for me but take their monthly subs feesâ€

Which new government?

Mark wrote:Which new government?

The New Zealand Labour Party; in collision with The Green Party and Progressive Party. Way back in the heady days of 1999... When the new government replaced the Employment Contracts Act with the Employment Relations Act.

Ah right. Somehow I figured it wouldn't be our very own bunch of Neo-Thatcherites