Sorry I've been posting so many articles lately guys...

http://www.newsobserver.com/622/story/1116367.html

Unions don't take root here

Quote :

" Rob Christensen, Staff Writer Comment on this story North Carolina is the Norma Rae of states. You remember "Norma Rae," the 1979 movie starring Sally Field, about how a textile worker disturbed about Dickensian working conditions organized a successful union vote despite fierce company opposition. Norma Rae was based on Crystal Lee Sutton, a $2.65 per hour towel folder at the J.P. Stevens Plant in Roanoke Rapids. Sutton ended up losing her job and working at a fast-food restaurant. North Carolina is the least unionized state in the country, with 3 percent of the work force belonging to unions in 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. To put this in perspective, Mississippi has double the unionization rate of North Carolina, Alabama triple the rate. The national average is 12.1 percent. As you might expect, the current drive in the legislature to allow public employees to engage in collective bargaining appears to be going nowhere fast this session. The House Democratic caucus took up the matter last week. "At this point, I doubt it has the votes to pass," said House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman, a Democrat from Lexington. North Carolina has one of the most restrictive laws against collective bargaining by public employees in the country. But a labor coalition is making a concerted effort to change that. Leading the drive is the 2 million-member Service Employees International Union, the nation's fastest-growing union. This spring, the State Employees Association of North Carolina -- the major advocacy group for state workers -- voted to affiliate with the SEIU. Also pushing to change the collective bargaining law are the N.C. Association of Educators, the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters and the American Federation of Teachers. To gain clout in the legislature, the SEIU has been plowing money into Tar Heel political campaigns. But the drive also has powerful opposition. Business groups fear it will lead to a more powerful labor movement in the state. State and local government officials warn it will lead to work disruptions, drawn-out negotiations, time-consuming grievance procedures and higher taxes. History would suggest you bet on the opponents. There are a lot of reasons why unions have found North Carolina such barren ground. Part of it is cultural. When North Carolina was industrialized in the 20th century, the mills were manned by fiercely independent hill-country farmers, not by European immigrants as elsewhere. The factories were in small, rural mill towns, often controlled by the mill owners, rather than in big cities where organizing was easier. North Carolina -- a once poor rural state trying to attract Northern industry -- has been openly hostile to its workers' organizing. During the 1920s, the government used bullets and billy clubs to put down the union movement. There is still a plaque in state AFL-CIO headquarters commemorating six striking textile workers shot dead in the back by deputy sheriffs in McDowell County. The crushing of the labor movement has had a profound impact on North Carolina politics. There is no countervailing political force to business in North Carolina as there is in most states. Consequently, business interests usually get what they want in the legislature. The clout of business and the weakness of labor also mean that any effort to persuade the legislature to give public employees collective bargaining rights will be a tough sell. "

Thoughts?

9/7/2008 9:16:07 AM

Sally Field sucks.

9/7/2008 9:35:38 AM

I am proud of North Carolina's anti-unionism. It is the lack of unions which has driven North Carolina's development from "a once poor rural state trying to attract Northern industry" to a modern, urban, industrial and technological giant. We rank high on lists of the best places to live, best places to work, and best places to do business. As a result, workers flock from all across the country for jobs in our non-union companies. In some years, Raleigh's population has grown as much as 10%.

Meanwhile, the most pro-union states in the north-east tend to be losing population as workers flee high unemployment and poor living conditions.

So, thank God the people of North Carolina understand that while unions may seem like a good idea on paper, in practice they are a policy disaster.

9/7/2008 9:38:01 AM

State still manages to be doing pretty well overall despite the lack of Unions. Doesn't really bother me.

9/7/2008 9:39:26 AM

^^ In practice, unions increase wages for union workers. The lower the pay, the greater the gain from unionization.

9/7/2008 9:41:47 AM

here is what i think of unions

I was on a job in NY State, near Binghamton

Everyone was going slow as fuck, so I pitched in to help

every single person out there complained to the manager that I was doing their jobs

so basically, if you are in a union, you can work slow and do piss poor work

Im sure its different in other places, but this is the only one I ever saw first hand

9/7/2008 9:47:01 AM

Quote :

"In practice, unions increase wages for union bosses"

That and unions are a way to guarantee reduced work ethic. union employees are fucking worthless. They don't deserve the jobs they have.

9/7/2008 9:48:10 AM

^ It's not just the bosses. Union workers make more.

9/7/2008 9:54:37 AM

^ yes they do. To the detriment of the rest of society. That is ignoring the other shoe of unionization, reduced work ethic, which curtails worker productivity at the same time that the union is curtailing worker participation. End result: less production of goods and services, which means there is less to go around. Society suffers.

9/7/2008 9:59:35 AM

^ That part is debatable. The fact that unions increase wages isn't. In any case, do you seriously believe NC workers are rejecting higher wages to benefit society? Just like sugar producers oppose quotas and all sorts of farmers oppose subsidies?

9/7/2008 10:03:03 AM

Even in the most unionized state in the union, unions still cover only a small fraction of the workforce. As such, it is not voters voting in favor of lower wages, but voters voting against higher wages for a minority of workers and lower wages or unemployment for the majority of workers.

So, yes, now that we know unionization is a policy desaster, voting against unionization can be a purely self interested vote. Afterall, how are voters to know whether they will be on the winning or the losing end of unionization when the losing end is so much more populous than the winning end?

9/7/2008 10:34:22 AM

broad based increased wages for unskilled labor will simply adjust by localized inflation.

It's why everything costs "more" in heavily unionized areas.


------

Here's a counterexample where employees are smart enough to understand that unionization will fuck them rather than help them.

Quote :

" To the Japanese automobile manufacturers, unions are the plague. And the United Auto Workers (UAW) admit to having a tough time getting new union members when they visit Japanese manufacturers' plants (called 'transplants') in the U.S. "People just aren’t interested," said one union organizer. The Japanese auto makers in the U.S. seem to be winning their battle with the UAW because the people they employ seem convinced that the benefits are good and that the union couldn't do any better. Moreover, these auto makers tend to build plants in the U.S. in areas that have a low average wage for laborers. Worse, conditions are better in transplants in some areas. An example of a happy plant of workers is in the Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. The workers are now being paid more and getting better bonuses than UAW workers average at domestic plants. Yet the UAW continues to try. It attempted to organize the workers at the Subaru plant in Lafayette at least three times. The result? Nada, nothing. The plant will be producing Camrys (pictured) in a joint venture with Toyota in April. Our take? The strength of the UAW has ebbed substantially. In 1979 the union had a membership of 1.5 million. By 2005 it had plunged to 600,000. Unless the transplants do something real stupid like slashing wages in half or eliminating medical benefits, we see union membership continue to dwindle. "

9/7/2008 10:36:18 AM

Quote :

"Everyone was going slow as fuck, so I pitched in to help every single person out there complained to the manager that I was doing their jobs so basically, if you are in a union, you can work slow and do piss poor work"

its the exact same at my work. it pisses me off.

9/7/2008 10:42:21 AM

Quote :

"Everyone was going slow as fuck, so I pitched in to help every single person out there complained to the manager that I was doing their jobs so basically, if you are in a union, you can work slow and do piss poor work Im sure its different in other places, but this is the only one I ever saw first hand"

This reminds me of government employees

9/7/2008 11:32:31 AM

Unions falsley inflate the costs of business by requiring companies to pay benfits and higher salaries than would be normal based upon the market.

Eventually, the companies can't afford it and either have to fire workers or go out of business. Just look at the maufacturing and auto industry in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan areas.

9/7/2008 5:50:33 PM

That would make sense in theory, but all the countries we compete with in the auto industry have unions as well, don't they? I believe they all also have universal health care.

9/7/2008 6:34:02 PM

Where I work (which is in NC) had a union vote recently. It was voted down almost 7 to 1

9/7/2008 7:26:37 PM

^^

The also have higher unemployment rates.

9/7/2008 7:37:51 PM

Quote :

"This reminds me of government employees"

I work in state government and I can assure you that no one complains when I do their job for them.

9/7/2008 8:08:37 PM

you mean ppl actually do their jobs in state govt?? lol

9/7/2008 8:14:42 PM

Some do...

9/7/2008 8:15:51 PM

good to hear

each time i look at my state taxes for the year i do one of these praying that some of my dollars are used effectively

9/7/2008 8:17:49 PM

One of the tire factories in my home town voted to go union, then one year later voted the union out...they made lots of promises and didnt do anything. When you vote in a union you have to wait a year to vote them out.

9/7/2008 8:23:10 PM

Quote :

"Even in the most unionized state in the union, unions still cover only a small fraction of the workforce. As such, it is not voters voting in favor of lower wages, but voters voting against higher wages for a minority of workers and lower wages or unemployment for the majority of workers."

Possibly. I just wanted to make sure you weren't claiming folks who would directly benefit rejected unions out of some firm belief in conservative economics better the world. If anything, that would prove they weren't rational, self-interested actors.

Note also that unions cover a far greater percentage of workers in Europe than here. This would solve your dilemma. As you probably, there's plenty of data undermining the notion that unions hurt the economy overall. I'll cite CEPR, because I love them:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/french-labor-law-reform-not-supported-by-economic-evidence/

9/7/2008 10:47:21 PM

I have never understood why employers should have less rights than employees, especially considering most/all employment is done on their property.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as any employee can quit a job for any reason they like with little or no notice (assuming no contract otherwise), then any employer should be able to 'quit' an employee by firing them for any reason they like with little or no notice.

Freedom of Association, ftw

9/7/2008 10:54:23 PM

^ Employers have inherent power over their employees. They're hardly being oppressed by unions or government restriction.

9/7/2008 11:08:11 PM

I can see why you love CEPR, since they clearly make the same abhorrent arguments you do. Just the most glarring, your link suggests that the EU central bank keeping interest rates too high somehow explains several decades of high unemployment in France, and not the policy and culture structure of France's labor market, although the EU central bank did not exist for a lot of that time and such would contradict several works, including the natural rate of unemployment, which states that no central bank can keep unemployment away from the natural rate in the long term, be it high or low.

9/7/2008 11:15:09 PM

^^union labor is a form of contract.

9/7/2008 11:15:33 PM

It is. And not even the most anti-union state would curtail any union that managed to get its employer to sign such a contract voluntarily.

But as we all know, what is at issue are the involuntary unions that are not only imposed involuntarily upon the employer but a fraction of the workforce as well (those that opposed unionization).

9/7/2008 11:24:39 PM

I'll pull this line, since the people in your camp always like to pull it.

If you don't want to work in a union shop then don't. go work someplace else.

9/7/2008 11:27:35 PM

^^ You're just angry the data doesn't support your basic models. Unfortunately for you, faults in alternative theories don't make yours correct. As correction, though, the linked doesn't make any claims about decades of high unemployment in France. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Here the important point from the link:

Quote :

"While it is true that France’s unemployment rate is relatively high (9.2 percent), there are a number of countries with high levels of labor market protections and low levels of unemployment: Austria (5.2 percent), Denmark (4.4 percent), Ireland (4.3 percent), the Netherlands (4.6 percent), and Norway (4.5 percent)."

[Edited on September 7, 2008 at 11:28 PM. Reason : see the pdf linked from the article for the data]

9/7/2008 11:28:12 PM

Exactly my point nutty. If I want to work in a union shop then I can accept lower wages in exhange for my employer signing on. But, if unionization is imposed by the government, then there is no where I can go to find a non-union shop. If you are an auto worker and live in Union states, then non-UAW shops do not exist. But, among right to work states, union work can be found at BMW, non-union can be found at Toyota, etc.

And yes, Viper, while it is not mentioned in the article, France's unemployment rate has been significantly higher than its industrialized peers for almost two decades.

The US just a few years ago made more cars than ever before in history, it is just that they were now being made in righttowork states, not Michigan. It seems clear to most people that the reason transplants are not openning in Detroit is for policy reasons. Do you disagree?

9/7/2008 11:48:10 PM

Quote :

""Everyone was going slow as fuck, so I pitched in to help every single person out there complained to the manager that I was doing their jobs so basically, if you are in a union, you can work slow and do piss poor work Im sure its different in other places, but this is the only one I ever saw first hand""

Suprised they didn't file a greviance against you. You doing their job shows that they don't have enough employees so another laborer should be hired, at least thats what they believe, not me personally. Maybe the northeast unions are a little more slack, but I've been working in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and a couple other midwest states all summer and they take it pretty serious.

[Edited on September 7, 2008 at 11:50 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2008 11:50:00 PM

Quote :

"And yes, Viper, while it is not mentioned in the article, France's unemployment rate has been significantly higher than its industrialized peers for almost two decades."

This doesn't make your previous statement correct. The article did not claim interest rates explain decades of low unemployment.

9/8/2008 12:18:36 AM

Not all unions are bad. A lot of the labor protections we have now are thanks to people getting fed up at the turn of the last century and unionizing.

Some companies are still scummy and having a union in place can help keep that in check. Unfortunately though you have greedy unions that give a bad name to the decent ones.

9/8/2008 5:20:51 AM

Unions in general have been on the decline for the last several decades, largely because they were so successful in accomplishing much of their initial platform, rapidly increasing wealth, and problems with national union leaders. It is hard to envision rapid unionization in today's global economy, particularly without terrible working conditions (such as we saw in mills in the early 20th century). The main places unions still have power are in well-organized entrenched public unions and declining industries in particular regions of the country. Even in the auto industry, foreign auto makers (whose jobs are growing) are providing generous benefits while Detroit has been contracting. One could argue that this is in part driven by the threat of unionization, but the trends do not support it.

9/8/2008 9:29:18 AM

markgoal, the working conditions you call so terrible at the turn of the century were heaven compared to the working conditions in mills just thirty years earlier, when unions made no headway (back then the pinkertons tended to shoot union leaders). In fact, Unions only really grew after various state governments and then FDR passed laws enabling unions to coerce their members and other workers.

As such, in my opinion unions are a political and cultural phenomenon, absolute working conditions are irrelevant.

Of course, if it were unions which improved working conditions from the 1930s onward (the only time they started to matter), one wonders why working conditions and pay improved at all from 1600 to 1936 without the help of unions.

GoldenViper, the article said that high interest rates explain France's high unemployment rate. France has had a high unemployment rate for decades. Are you suggesting they have a different explanation for the previous decade but decided to keep it secret?

Quote :

"Unfortunately for you, faults in alternative theories don't make yours correct."

What alternative theories? You have presented no theories what-so-ever beyond linking to an article which presented an absurd theory (high interest rates explain decades of high unemployment). So, please, present alternative theories and then we shall see if they stand up better than my theory that long term unemployment differentials between countries are explained by policy and cultural differences.

9/8/2008 10:25:15 AM

^ Have you lost it? Please stop making inaccurate claims. The article does not say you anything about your decades of unemployment. Again, look at the data. That counts more than anybody's theories.

9/8/2008 10:32:10 AM

Quote :

"You doing their job shows that they don't have enough employees so another laborer should be hired"

No, it shows that they're fucking lazy.

9/8/2008 11:05:37 AM

No, Golden, the article does not. But the history books sure do. As such, chronic long term unemployment disuades an assertion that french unemployment is caused by high interest rates.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9f/20071219000154!Unemployment_France,_UE-15,_G7.png

Search engines are your friend. I image searched "France unemployment" and this was the first graphic that came up. And this was the third:
http://www.economicshelp.org/uploaded_images/uk-france-719448.gif

9/8/2008 12:12:26 PM

^ That's not addressed in the article. The CEPR folks do suggest the interest rate as a possible explanation for Europe's current higher unemployment. How you twist this into talking about France's unemployment rate for decades I don't know.

9/8/2008 12:16:53 PM

Quote :

"every single person out there complained to the manager that I was doing their jobs"

we were installing a paint line in Michigan a few years ago and my boss got kicked out of the plant for getting some tools out of the toolbox at this company (cough cough, a car maker that's stock is at 1950 levels).. the reason being that there was a person whose job was to get tools out of the toolbox, and no one else was allowed to do it..

..pure fucking insanity to me. if you need that kind of shit to keep your job then you probably suck at life.

edit: I also understand that at one point there was a definite need for unions.. that time has however passed

[Edited on September 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/8/2008 12:24:02 PM

Agreed. Unions once served a purpose, they no longer do. It's also pretty fucking funny when totally unskilled labor tries to unionize. If I can train your replacement in 15 minutes you really don't have much leverage.

I can't imagine ever wanting to be in a union. Why would I want my pay tied to things like seniority and what other people are making? I'd much rather have it tied to my performance.

9/8/2008 12:27:31 PM

Yes, the article tries to prove its argument by only discussing the present. But the EU did not come into existance in 2006. As such, it would be a falacy to ignore the prior twenty years in an effort to ignore the fact that EU unemployment has consistently been 50% percent higher than the G7 average while at the same time being less productive.

But, again, this is all irrelevant. Maybe the French and their fellow Europeans would be just as unemployed with better policies. Maybe it is a purely cultural phenomenon, I cannot say for certain.

My point is that I know of no mechanism for coersive unions to have net benefits for society. Once granted special priviledge over their fellow workers, unions have a strong incentive to cut both employment and productivity in their captive industries. Afterall, tolerated laziness is a form of compensation, and by driving up this and other forms of compensation, unions will weaken their employers and curtail expansion, at the expensive of both customers and non-employees, both groups which dramatically outnumber the union members in question.

[edit] I just realized that me and Viper are distracting this thread from its better purpose of allowing those here from industry to spread horror stories of dealing with unions. I appologize.

[Edited on September 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/8/2008 12:33:11 PM

Quote :

"You doing their job shows that they don't have enough employees so another laborer should be hired" No, it shows that they're fucking lazy. "

^6 Yeah thats what I was saying, read the whole post next time please.

9/8/2008 1:39:25 PM

It's amazing how every TWW thread will see the free market advocates win out in the end.

You people are just too highly educated. You need to loose some degrees to get in line with the rest of the population.

9/8/2008 6:35:29 PM

more union shenanigans

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/europeinsight/archives/2008/09/boeings_on_stri.html?campaign_id=rss_daily

(albeit not in NC...just didn;t want to start new thread

9/9/2008 11:39:40 AM

Interesting article. The devalued dollar would make Boeing's planes very attractive.

9/9/2008 12:41:39 PM

bottom line is that unions served an important purpose before the major national labor laws were enacted....now that we have labor law that all businesses must abide by, unions are for the most part, an unnecessary bloat that negatively impact both workers and companies in the long run.

9/9/2008 1:36:45 PM

^Until you see the difference between union and nonunion wages. I work up north on constuction projects that are 100% union laborers and operating engineers and believe me the difference is significant.

[Edited on September 9, 2008 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2008 8:51:42 PM