PDA

View Full Version : Uniouns, good for, bad for, indifferent on the economy?


JCricket
11-05-2009, 11:27 AM
We have been talking about free speech, ethics, and econims this morning. I was thinking about unions(thanks to a fellow poster). I have not spent a lot of time on this, so this post is really me thining out lod. I am going to jot done some thoughts and would like someone to tear this apart logically. I have to tell you, when I thought this through, I really suprised myself with what came out.

here goes...

Are unions good for, bad for, or have little impact on our economy. I guess this could be divided into two sections. First unions at their infancy, and today. I am considering today as my topic.

To do this I used two ethical approaches(thus needed to define the "good"). One approach is utilitarian(farily democratic in my opinion). The other was the ethical egoist(a farily republican approach).

Utilitarian at first glance seem like it would be bad for the company and thus bad for the economy. But is it? Utilitarian states taht whatever is the most good is the right course of action. A union shop is expensive, it costs a lot in wages, but these wages translate into more jobs and greater buying power of the general populace. Further, they(wages) cause other compainies through the sale of their product to grow and also strenghen our economy. And another, non-union companies have to compete at least a little bit in their pay to employess to keep them(well I like to think so). Another benefit, it makes the management work hard to be able to compete with other non-union/less cost producing companies to compete. Thus, hopefully a better product for all in the market place. The negative I see is actually for the employees of the union shop. Sure, better money and benefits, but frequently they also get the attitude of entightlement and laziness. This is a very degrading thing for those menbers. So overall, I think the utilitaruiion approach says unions are good for the economy.

In the Ethical egoist approach, no one is entightled to anyting. You are responsible for your well being and don't ask me to pay for you - so it says if I understand it and paraphrased it correctly. My primary focus was again on the work needed by mangement to compete in the market place. It makes it very difficult to sell their product in a market place and do so competively. But tehy can do it(well maybe not these days with china crunching us). Also, it forces companies outside of the union shops to behave in certain ways. They could choose otherwise, but the force of the unions' existance does in fact have an impact on all companies. In this example the employees would be unethical(in a sense), the companies may or may not be, and the public benefits again.

So yeas on both sides of the aisle, from a democratic and republican(suprised me too) perspective, unions do ah vea good influence on the economy.

Like I said, thinking out loud.
Kevlar undies are on. fire away.

d-ray657
11-05-2009, 12:01 PM
See JC, I told you we would agree on a lot of things. I don't really buy into the unions making people lazy part though. I fact unions can make the workplace more efficient in some ways.

One of the most important things that unions do are provide protection against arbitrary management decisions that concern the terms and conditions of employment. For example, most union contracts limit the ability to fire to circumstances where the employer has just cause for the discharge. (In case you weren't aware, the prevailing law in the non-union workplace is that an employee can be fired for no reason at all) The concept of just cause includes the practice of progressive discipline. In other words, before firing an employee, except for some types of offenses such as violence or stealing, the employer must counsel the employee and give him or her an opportunity to improve on the issue. That gives the employee to opportunity to improve productivity or attendance and see that as important to keeping the job. Many will appreciate the chance to prove themselves rather than being on the street. Turnover is expensive and unproductive for employers. When instead of firing people, they ar required to give them an opportunity to improve, they get better performance from an existing employee instead of incurring the expense of replacing that employee.

Granted there are some people who are lazy, and there are some who won't tale advantage of the opportunities. After the union has obtained more chances for an employee who has failed to take advantage of them, the union will often refuse to take the grievance. The union representatives whith whom I have worked are usually good employees, who are respected by the other employees. They are also bright enough to realize that there are some people who just won't allow themselves to be helped.

We don't need to lower union wages to help America's economy. We need to unionize the rest of the world.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
11-05-2009, 12:24 PM
Funny, I thought the Declaration of Independence said we were entitled to a few things. As far as I am concerned there is very little ethical about the egoist approach, YMMV.

HatchetJack
11-05-2009, 12:37 PM
Good and Bad, Good if it helps employees earn a fair wage and have a safe
work place. Bad if workers are overpaid to the point that the final product
is not competitive in terms of quality and price to survive a world economy.

JCricket
11-05-2009, 01:18 PM
Funny, I thought the Declaration of Independence said we were entitled to a few things. As far as I am concerned there is very little ethical about the egoist approach, YMMV.

Myabe I need to refresh myself on this. But I pretty much agree about there being little that is ethical about the egoist approach, but it is a defined set of ethical behaivors. One of the few sets that actual does define a behaviors as ethical or not too.

It most closely follows the capitalst economical system, as I understand it. Please tell me to go pen some books if you think I am wrong. I haven't been in my colleges classes for a looooonnggg time!

merrylander
11-05-2009, 02:42 PM
Wel I never was so I can't advise you there. Unfettered capitalism reached its zenith (for lack of a better term) during the Rockefeller/Carnegie years and surely the was never a clearer illustration of total disregard of ethics (if you accept that ethics = moral philosophy).

The odd thing is that I do not believe that greed is our natural bent. I think back to when my son was around five or six. If my wife (ex now) gave him a candy or cookie he would ask if he could also have one for his friend outside. Not that he is greedy today, but I think we divert our children's best instincts. By we I mean society as a whole, not just the parents.

Wast the poet correct "Trailing clouds of glory do we come from God whi is our home."?

Then there is the other side of the coin in Elizabeth Barrett Browning's poem "The Children". That one sort of has a personal angle, my Dad was working in the wollen mills at age 12. As I noted in the Ancestry thread, my Grand Dad was a shepherd, both emigrated to Canada and did very well for their families, but I guess familal experiences with things they went through have given me my 'bias'.

JCricket
11-05-2009, 04:06 PM
Merrylander, I have many mental deficiencies. Poetry being on of the more pronounced.

I did look it up and that was by Wadsworth. I read the poem too. As with most poems, I will need to reread it a couple fo times to take away as much as possible - and I will reread. It definately seems worth while - thanks for the tidibit.

If I understand, your reference to poetry is possibly an explantion as to our moral makeup and where it "naturally" lies. Specifically, our moral makeup is subverted by society. Unlike the being who we were created after?

Am I understanding correctly? I likethe idea, but it really opens a flood gate of philisophical and religious questions. I need a fresh pot of coffee first thing in the morning for that one.

On last thought "Unfettered capitalism reached its zenith (for lack of a better term) during the Rockefeller/Carnegie years and surely the was never a clearer illustration of total disregard of ethics (if you accept that ethics = moral philosophy)."

The Ethics of Moral Philosophy. By James Rachels This is a failry quick read and most of my basic philisophical teaching come from this book.

I was taught by my professor, ethics is the application of the moral. Morals - another philisophical mess, worthy of many first thing in the morning discusions. I'll rest for now.

Cricket

JCricket
11-05-2009, 04:09 PM
See JC, I told you we would agree on a lot of things. I don't really buy into the unions making people lazy part though. I fact unions can make the workplace more efficient in some ways.

One of the most important things that unions do are provide protection against arbitrary management decisions that concern the terms and conditions of employment. For example, most union contracts limit the ability to fire to circumstances where the employer has just cause for the discharge. (In case you weren't aware, the prevailing law in the non-union workplace is that an employee can be fired for no reason at all) The concept of just cause includes the practice of progressive discipline. In other words, before firing an employee, except for some types of offenses such as violence or stealing, the employer must counsel the employee and give him or her an opportunity to improve on the issue. That gives the employee to opportunity to improve productivity or attendance and see that as important to keeping the job. Many will appreciate the chance to prove themselves rather than being on the street. Turnover is expensive and unproductive for employers. When instead of firing people, they ar required to give them an opportunity to improve, they get better performance from an existing employee instead of incurring the expense of replacing that employee.

Granted there are some people who are lazy, and there are some who won't tale advantage of the opportunities. After the union has obtained more chances for an employee who has failed to take advantage of them, the union will often refuse to take the grievance. The union representatives whith whom I have worked are usually good employees, who are respected by the other employees. They are also bright enough to realize that there are some people who just won't allow themselves to be helped.

We don't need to lower union wages to help America's economy. We need to unionize the rest of the world.

Regards,

D-Ray


D-Ray for now let it suffice to say that I think we probably have many of the same fundamental beliefs. But, I think we may differ in the application and measure on society of those. It would be very interesting to sit down and have a cup of coffee with you!:)

Charles
11-05-2009, 10:34 PM
We don't need to lower union wages to help America's economy. We need to unionize the rest of the world.

Regards,

D-Ray

My Dad, and actually myself, would agree with you.

Dad was a Teamster, drove a truck for 30 yrs, them became a business agent for another 10 yrs. You might say he was very pro union.

I remember my mom giving him a hard way to go because he was a Jimmy Hoffa fan, called Hoffa a thug.

Dad always said, "That thug makes us a pretty good living."

Now D-Ray, I'm not so sure how you feel about the Teamsters...all unions aren't the same. And the Teamsters have had their problems. But they were/are an effective union.

As you're a labor lawyer, I would be interested in your take on this matter. Quite interested, as a matter of fact.

And my Dad would love ya.

Chas

BTW, you're not one of those union "lawyers" who can't wear a clip on tie because your necks too big to button the top button of your shirt, are you?

d-ray657
11-05-2009, 11:42 PM
My take on the Teamsters - I'm pissed that they dumped us, but that's another long story.

The Teamsters are a very effective union. Most Teamster drivers are very faithful to a picket line as well. IIRC, the contract provided that it was not a breach of the no-strike clause to honor a picket line.

The Teamsters representation goes well beyond truck drivers. They have represented food processing plants, nurses, flight attendants - all sorts of occupations. War story -the first arbitration I did on my own was for the Teamsters. We took the grievance for a third shift worker who was caught sleeping on the job. Let's just say that the evidence was contested whether he was taking a nap or had just dozed off. I was able to get his job back because others caught sleeping on the job had been given three days off for a first offense. Just cause requires non-discriminatory application of work rules, so we were able to effectively enforce the just cause provision in the contract. As far as I know, the worker continued to do his job for a long time after that.

I'm not fully versed on my Teamsters history. I am aware that it became an immensely powerful organization, and some union officials succumed to the temptation that comes with that power. There has been lots of house-cleaning - some forced by the courts, some done democratically. It is still a considerable institution, and no doubt there are a few who will stray. In the long run, however, the Teamsters do their job of representing employees quite effectively.

With respect to Hoffa, he certainly increased the Teamsters' influence, and mostly for the good of the workers. From what I've read he wasn't afraid to fight fire with fire, and he made friends with a few people who weren't model citizens.

As far as the tie - unfortunately my belly makes me buy big enough shirts that the neck size is no issue. Haven't used a clip-on tie since I was about 9, though, and when I grew up, people dressed up for church, so I hadda learn to tie one.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
11-06-2009, 08:13 AM
JC I guess I was applying my own observations of children before we corrupt their thinking and that led to my recalling the poem - I inherited all of mmy Dad's "Complete works of ..." poetry books as well as collecting some of my own, such as Elizabeth Barrett Browning and John Donne. I guess Donne's "No man is an island" did as much to define my philosophical outlook as anything. There was a second and bookstore in Montreal where the owner and I had many a discussion. He was a patient elderly Jew who was very kind to this young WASP, well young then.

Had I gone to university I would most likely have chosen a bachelor's in philosophy, it is a second love. For a short period I had the run of a professor's library, he held the Chair in Philosophy at McGill University in Montreal.

Apart from a few animals I don't believe that visciousness is a natural phenomena. We had a mother cat adopt us and she eventuallly brought her four kittens over from the neighbors where they were certainly not wanted. We had them all neutered - five is fine, twenty five is not - and given all the necessary shot, but because of allergies they can't come in. The main point is that although we have had pets before, this is the first time to have the opportunity to observe a family of cats. Momma is for sure the boss and the four do what she orders. Three females and one male and the plain and simple affection they show each other is beautiful to see.

Sorry. long winded old fart.

noonereal
11-06-2009, 08:26 AM
Unions, good for, bad for, indifferent on the economy?

Well generally good but sometimes, you just need to get things done yourself and, well...... when this happens they are not so good.

http://www.nataliedee.com/110607/susan-b-anthony-did-not-die-in-battle-so-i-could-fix-a-shelf-WITHOUT-my-pink-and-dainty-screwdriver.jpg

BlueStreak
11-07-2009, 04:07 PM
Okay. I'll "weigh in".

Having grown up in a mostly UAW family, been a member of HERE and UCFW and served on two contract negotiating committees and participated in organizing efforts my knee jerk reaction is to sing the praises.

Yes, I have campaigned, passed out cards, sat in some rather colorfull meetings, faced management from across the table, stood out on a picket line in the cold, and witnessed company sponsered corruption and violence. As the Great John L. Lewis once said; "They smote me hip and thigh, and right merrily did I return the blows."

But, that was a long time ago. I have changed and so has the world.

So, the question is; Unions? Good, or Bad?

In the context of the times, I would have to say that those in the ranks of organized labor must be pragmatic, yet maintain the brotherhood. We live in a global marketplace, like it or not Americas workforce has been exposed to direct competition with far cheaper labor markets. The focus of the Unions must be to maintain domestic membership whilst seeking to help unions in the foreign markets fight to raise their workers to a better standard. Once this has been accomplished to some greater degree can we resume to recover that which has been lost.

So, to stop beating around the bush and get to the point. Unions can and have been a force for the good. Think of all the things most workers, even non-union workers have today that once, only a couple generations ago were "executive perks" or didn't exist at all.

But unions can get out of control. Run costs to unrealistic levels, making businesses unprofitable and causing owners to abandon them.

In summary; After all of that long winded jaw flapping, my answer is------------------Depends on the circumstances. Right now driving up wages (In the domestic market.) might just be a bad mistake. Even though I know many of our working families could use the money.

I hope I have helped to add to the confusion.

Dave

BlueStreak
11-07-2009, 04:12 PM
"We don't need to lower union wages to help America's economy. We need to unionize the rest of the world.

Regards,

D-Ray"

What you said.

Dave

noonereal
11-07-2009, 04:36 PM
"We don't need to lower union wages to help America's economy. We need to unionize the rest of the world.

Regards,

D-Ray"

What you said.

Dave

exactly

elwood127
11-08-2009, 11:41 PM
Good and Bad, Good if it helps employees earn a fair wage and have a safe
work place. Bad if workers are overpaid to the point that the final product
is not competitive in terms of quality and price to survive a world economy.

You summed it up perfectly. Now if only the health bill were as short and to the point.