46 replies to this topic

[IBBadDude]

Scab,

I actually agree with your two paragraphs for the most part.

Now, what do you propose the unions do? This is a serious question, if you think what is being done now isn't the right approach then what is the right approach?

[scb]

-IBBad-

I've gone over this several times before, and no doubt I'll forget to detail elements I've already made note of. But anyway, here goes.

(1) Union members have to accept the overwhelming determinate of "the market" and come to terms with "market worth". By that I mean that Unions have to put themselves in a position where they represent, if not the "best", at least an "equal" labor alternative in terms of cost-effectiveness. That doesn't necessarily mean that their members have to work for the lowest - or even a "low" - hourly wage, but rather that they have to offer the best "return" (or "bang for the buck") of the labor options available. Bottom line is they have to be competitive; if they're not competitive, they're bound to lose...no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it.

(2) In that vein, they (unions) are going to have to come to grips with disciplining their own members if they're not economically up-to-snuff. By that I mean that, instead of protecting the weaker (in terms of their labor offering) members, they're going to have to get involved with weeding them out. Right now, unions suffer with the reputation among employers of harboring the weakest elements of workers in society; that perception is going to have to be changed to one in which the employers consider union workers the STRONGEST workers.

(3) Part of that will probably involve unions actually investing time, effort, and money into development and training of their members and potential members. Yeah, occasionally now you see union apprenticeship programs and such...but they're far too rare, and far too often when they DO exist, they offer little in the way of benefit to employers, and function primarily as a means of discrimination against "outsiders" entering the fold. That has to change; unions are going to have to realize that they are going to have to some things THEMSELVES, and not depend on society to treat them as favored children.

(4) Unions are going to have to deal with society's perception of them as being crime-ridden and corrupt entities infested with thugs. And the first step in that is to actually become organizations in which corruption and thuggery isn't tolerated. I know people won't like to hear this, but just what kind of perception (by way of example) are the Teamsters perpetuating with potential members and the public-at-large with things like a scholarship fund that memorializes a convicted felon? Yeah, it may be real "ballsy" and such.....but, in terms of what one would think would be the union's goals, it's counter-productive and down-right stupid! Why on earth would an organization want to MAINTAIN a negative perception that has been so harmful to it over the years?

(5) Unions are going to have to come to grips with the fact that they're employed by employers because employers WANT TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF THEM! And they're going to have to accept that simply "breaking even" isn't going to cut it. Employers want to MAXIMIZE profits, and they always will. If unions set themselves up as being against that maximization, then they're also setting themselves up (in the employers eyes at least) as the enemy...and since when has it become a good idea to make an enemy of one upon who your very economic existence depends? With that in mind I believe that unions are going to have to embrace a more "collegial" aspect, much as they have in places like Germany, where the FIRST goal of the union is to advance the interests of the employer, because the interests of the workers are so dependent upon their employers economic health; i.e. - everything else is secondary.

I have a good friend who's the "works representative" on the board of company in Germany. That's not exactly a union position, in that ALL the employees - not just union members - vote periodically (every three or four years, I believe) on a person who will represent THEIR interests on the company's board...while, at the same time, that representative's primary fiduciary responsibility it to the company itself (the closest equivalent would be the UAW placing somebody on Chrysler's board, or what-not). He maintains his regular job, if possible, although in a large company like the one my friend works in, his "representative" job is very much full-time. But the point is that, as the workers ombudsman, he represents the workers point of view to the company, but at the same time is responsible for representing the company's needs to the workers. In that sense, there's just not near the antagonism there is over here. The workers seem to be more knowledgeable about the economic necessities of the world economy, and realize they have to COMPETE if they're going to remain a part of it. And, to be honest, they've been relatively successful at it. I don't think American union workers have come to that realization yet; if they had, they wouldn't be pissing away jobs at the rate they have.

My German friend (who, bear in mind, is very MUCH "union") seems appalled at the attitude and state of unionism in the U.S. Every time he comes over to visit (and he was last here a couple of months ago for 3 weeks), he comments as to how "foolish" American union members seem to be. Bear in mind, this isn't some ass-kisser, but a knowledgeable, concerned unionist who just doesn't see how those who bite the hand that feeds them can hope to have full bellys over the long term.

I'm sure I'm missing several other points I've already made over the years here on T-Net, but these will do for a start. I'm sure I've more than bored my audience here already. Anyway, thanks for asking.....

-scb-

[dumfck]

yes scb you have bored me for years on t-net spewing all of your bs so please no more boring bs just do everyone a favor and go away

[IBBadDude]

Actually some of what you say is true, but your approach on this site doesn't support what you have laid out.

I agree that members and unions need to take a more interactive role in the company or industry economic stability. Quite frankly you obviously have characterized a lot of us wrong because some of the points you've laid out in this post labor leaders in the US do understand and are working to change the attitude.

So please take a moment and humor me now in where it has to be a cooperative effort for all parties. When one party no longer wants to cooperate your approach doesn't work.

The "Market" always determines cost, efficiencies and so on. In a perfect world workers and companies understand and share the responsibility of the market and cooperatively work through its efficiencies. Each market is comprised of your industry and related industries. When one side (company or workers) or their Representitives (lawyers and union advocates) fail to open up to that discussion and allow a fair share of profitability and efficancy so all can survive, it breaks down. The reality of what US companies do for the most part is shut you out when you begin with the approach you just laid out. The fact is companies fire the first shot and therefore an unnecessary battle is created. When that happens emotions get involved and we all know where that goes.

"Don't tell me how to run my business, this is my company, just do as I tell you" are very comman attitudes by business in the US. I would agree that business models in other countries have a much better approach but the US has a model of telling people to pound sand much of the time. We wish it wasn't that antagonistic but it is. Even if I agree with your approach we have a philisyphical breakdown in the current business model. So the question is "Who starts the fight or lack of communication?" I have many examples where I have suggested exactly what you have proposed and have been shot down by companies. Most of the time the company apologizes afterwords when they realize it was a waste of money to fight something that is necessary, they listened to their lawyers and reasonableness went out the window. Your point (1) can only be accomplished when the business community accepts it as well, we are not the only bad guy.

As an example there are a number of threads on this site where the leadership of our union is being attacked for YRC, IBC as well as other companies to try and remain profitable so all can continue to work. Some members are pissed and want the leadership to do things that would put the companies out of business, concessions have to be made sometimes and when they are done not very many people run to the defense of those making the tough decisions. Those are examples of how we are accually doing what you propose.

Our union supports a productive, well paid, economically balanced to the industry workforce. The studies have shown over and over union workers are far more productive. Here is part of the problem with balancing the industry as you put it. A lot of non union companies violate damn near ever law on the books. I'm not going to argue that fact with anyone because I have seen it first hand. When workers and a union try to bring ballance, efficiency as well as keep them economically up to snuff a company will spend thousands if not millions fighting it only making lawyers rich.

Your right that unions have a "perception" of only protecting the weaker non productive workers. The perception is wrong but yes we do have to change it.

Your (3) is correct and that is currently changing. A lot of unions are changing their training modules to deal with exactly what you pointed out but we are not societies favored children. As a matter of fact we are step children and we are obviously being attacked by part of society as we speak, that will change as well.

I love your number (4) because it is obviously outdated and the only reason we are falsely viewed as crime ridden is because of propaganda produced by those that hold down workers. It's a fact that crime, the mob and corruption had been weeded out for the most part. Corprate America has its black eyes as well. Far more than we do. I would agree that we do have to get the facts out that what is viewed is obviously not true, we have done a bad job of that.

The Scolorship Fund in Hoffas name is a tribute to all the community work that man did. He helped millions rise economically that trasinded generations and he served his debt to society for the laws he broke, move on. In the business community they hold up Carnegie and wow was he a crook. Don't even get me started on him the Smyths, Rockafellers etc. there was some down right criminal stuff done in the past by everyone.

Point (5) we understand more than you realize but you obviously never give us credit for it. The company needs to make a profit off the workers and the company needs to share the profit with the workers. The rederric you spill out on this site is wrong when it comes to this subject. Companies shouldn't make enemies of their employees either. When you can admit that companies have fault in this as well we can have a good conversation.

Your last point should be shared by all companies, however most turn down our request for those ideas for various reasons. I hope they will change their attitude soon because treating workers like they don't have tangeble ideas and input is very counter productive to production. Companies fight me all the time on this concept of having trained, educated workers understand the inter workings of their systems and operations.

I am going to ask you respectfully, one time to stop the bashing. If you want a good debate don't blame the the problems of our country on unions when companies have played a major role in it. Ask the question, get the answer, respond and if someone starts name calling shut them out.

We are doing many of the things you have pointed out and some of us are laying out industries to do exactly what needs to be done that will create ballance for workers and companies alike so all can prosper.

This tread is about organizing and you will see that I have talked about some of the very things we have just posted. Your constant attacks on unions are unnecessary and as I have pointed out before when emotions get envolved things escalate. When emotion gets out of control and reasonalblness is out the window the strong survive and natural human nature takes over. I always ask a company that is being unreasonable to understand that very aspect because they will lose when we all get to that point. Humans do crazy things when they feel their livelihood is under attack. They just want to protect their family. So let's try and be calm, talk through it, find common ground and resolve our differences.

[dumfck]

ibbaddude that sure puts scb in his place i am only a dumfck but i will thank you for all on t-net that have to endure his drivel [grin]

[scb]

-IBBad-

I think you're still trying to blame current employers for the results of past union practices....and asking employers to meet you at least halfway in terms of "cooperation". In a way, that's all good and well. However, there are a couple of problems with that approach. First, employers can view a long history of organized labor being antagonistic toward them. Look at how often unions declare "victory" and what-not, as if employers were the enemy, rather than that entity which PROVIDES EMPLOYMENT!!! With that history in mind, I think it's going to take a while before employers look kindly on organized labor, even if organized labor takes a radical departure from the way it has done things in the past.. Secondly, reinforcing that antagonism is the fact that, today, employers don't necessarily need what organized labor has to offer....they can do quite well in seeking out labor elsewhere. Now the usual argument to that is "how will companies sell their products without employing workers to buy them"...and the answer is that there WILL be employees to buy them; they just won't be here, or they won't be "organized". Notice the complaints now about high unemployment, yet [supposedly] record corporate profits.

Bottom line (and I'm *NOT* saying this simply to be provocative!) is that CORPORATE EMPLOYERS DON'T NEED UNIONS - or even this country's labor - to prosper!!! On the other hand, unions and would-be workers HAVE TO HAVE CORPORATIONS TO EMPLOY THEM SIMPLY TO EXIST...let alone prosper! I'm not pointing this out to be difficult, nor am I going to pretend that it's superficially "fair". Rather, I'm just pointing out that it's today's economic REALITY....and that denial of that reality is only going to increase labor's pain.

Beyond that, I'd like to point out that Carnegie wasn't a convicted felon.....and was never looked-upon negatively by his "customers" (i.e. - those who bought his steel). Carnegie BUILT positive aspects of society and, at the very least, he PROVIDED jobs...numbering in the thousands! His workers may not have liked him...but they kept drawing the wages he paid. Meanwhile, what did Hoffa do by way of comparison? In a very real sense, he pissed-off his "customers" (employers which could hire his members) Seems to me that he sowed the seeds of destruction of a unionized industry...and made it very difficult for the union he was supposed to LEAD to function in the future; the bottom line is that the Teamsters will always carry the brand of corruption Hoffa fixed on them. They might be able to mitigate the affects of that brand and camouflage it with some effort...but is that what they're doing? Nope...they're CELEBRATING the life of garden-variety criminal! They're HOLDING HIM UP as an exemplar of "unionism"! Sorry,but I just don't see the positive benefits of that kind of thing. And I think the proof is in the pudding. What are those membership numbers again? With all the growth of the country, isn't the Teamsters membership at about the same number as it was when Hoffa (the senior) first become head honcho?

That said, I'm not "anti-union" at all; rather I'M AGAINST THE WAY SO-CALLED "UNIONS" ARE CONSTITUTED TODAY!!!. I'm very much PRO-labor...but, from a realistic perspective, it's hard to see that "unions" (as they exist today) have had a net benefit to American workers at all. In fact, a very, VERY good case could be made that they've been destructive in terms of workers interests. Those millions of jobs thrown overseas didn't skedaddle "for nothing", you know. And you can't blame the corporations for their flight; they've simply looked-out for their own interests, and NATURALLY sought the most cost-effective labor. Seems to me that unions had an obligation to their members to make sure THEY were the most cost-effective alternative...and, in that, they've failed miserably. And today you can see the results of such failure.

Anyway, it would be nice to think that the employers will change. But, realistically, there's very little chance of that. As I said before, they really don't need domestic labor to prosper, and there's really no incentive for them to buy what the could reasonably foresee (after decades of "war") as being a "pig in a poke". And, despite your assertions, companies do NOT need to share their profits with their employees; that's not what they're in business for. And if you try to regulate 'em in that regard, then they'll simply dissolve a re-create themselves overseas. Or if you try to tax them into submission, then the capital that supports them will fly as well. The ONLY thing that labor can do is "woo" them...and try to show them BENEFITS worthy of staying the course. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like Great Britain in the 60's and 70's, or Argentina a bit later, or Venezuela and Cuba today. Without interested capital, a country's workers might as well kiss their economic happiness goodbye.

You seem to be saying that unions are changing to a degree...and perhaps they are. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. But I do realize that there's just little incentive anymore for corporate employers to "find common ground" and/or "resolve differences". Unions have forced them to go down another path...a path on which they're prospering. For them to change, you're going to have to SEDUCE them. And I can't help but believe that unions have every incentive to be "seductive" in that fashion; again, they NEED employers to exist. Employers, on the other hand, may need workers (although even that assumption is becoming suspect!)...but they don't have to be unionized workers, or even domestic ones. They're going to have to be persuaded - POSITIVELY persuaded! - that domestic union labor is a viable alternative. Agreed, that's a hard reality...a reality which many will view as "unfair". But it's a reality none-the-less.

Beyond that, it's a reality unions are going to have to face if they wish to grow themselves. I say that because as long as all they've got to show for themselves is the history of job loss they've suffered over the last few decades, they're going to have a hard time attracting those intelligent workers, who realize that their PRIMARY interest is KEEPING their job. Think the Teamsters have that problem with FedEx today; far too many FedEx employees realize that alignment with the Teamsters would probably be the first step toward losing their jobs (could they compete with UPS, for example, which is ALREADY handling them, even though it has the burden of the Teamsters)...and they'd rather have a decent (albeit perhaps not "the best") job than none at all. Witness Con-Way vs. Consolidated in that respect as well.

I suspect by now you're getting bored with my "little" side of the dialogue, so I'll take a breather. Thanks for reading.....

-scb-

[dumfck]

# scb zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz [grin]