Rethinking Labor and Capital

[The Progressive]

Or German "Works Councils" if I'm not mistaken.

Pfft. That's just the swedish model rebranded, and has been used since the 40's.

Artas,

Yes. Capital and Labor in the US are very antagonistic towarda each other.

It shouldn't be though. The German/Sweden/Dutch models are proof that a robust social welfare state would alleviate this tension.

Lol, but that would mean more expansion of the nanny-state and wealth redistribution ..............a non-starter from the American rightwing.

[TerraPrime]

Lol, but that would mean more expansion of the nanny-state and wealth redistribution ..............a non-starter from the American rightwing.

Bah, a non-starter in America, period.

It's funny, in a way, that a country that has not really been victimized by the abuse of socialism and communism breeds a level of resistance to socialism and communism that is stronger and more tenacious than in countries that have been savaged by the abuse. It's like the kid who got burned in a fire can still use a gas stove to cook, but the kid who never got bured by a fire is terrified by matches.

[Horza]

It comes from having ideal conditions for Anglo-Saxon capitalism early on and then never developing a Labour party. Once you get exposed to socialism it doesn't seem such a terrible thing. If you never have social democratic politics to begin with it's the perennial boogeyman.

[Galactus]

A CBA does cover all the workers in a bargaining unit, whether they're members of the union or not, but that's not the same as saying that the CBA covers everyone at the workplace. It all depends on how the bargaining unit was defined when it was certified. For example, production workers may be represented by the Steelworkers, while the maintenance, office, and janatorial workers may be represented by different unions, or perhaps not represented at all. In that case, the CBA negotiated by the Steelworkers would only cover the production workers.

Now, as to why management generally fights so hard against unions, it has as much or more to do with work rules and plant operations as it does with wages and benefits. Folks here always talk about management wanting to pay as much as possible, and labor wanting to be paid as much as possible. But the "darker side" of this has to be considered as well. The truth is that unions also want to get as much compensation for as little work as possible. Unions routinely try to control/limit management discretion in operations, limit hours and mandatory overtime without reduction in compensation, use of workforce, work rules, etc., which means that management decisions that previously could be taken freely now all have the associated costs of bargaining, grievances, and arbitrations associated with them as well.

Just as one example, unions often bargain hard for a provision that supervisors can't do any "bargaining unit" work. What that means is that if an employee is absent, or there is some crunch, supervisors may not pitch in to help out. The purpose of this is to force management to maintain a higher headcount of bargaining unit employees to cover for any such eventualities. This obviously raises the cost of production, so management opposes it.

Now, I'm sure folks will disagree on how justified these various positions are, but that's not the point. I'm simply offering a very common reason why management so strongly opposes unionization.

It should be pointed out that a lot of these things are because unions are kind of concerned about y'know... Accidents and such. From an employer's POV losing a worker to an accident isn't any different from losing one to any other factor, but to the employee it makes hell of a difference.

[lokisnow]

true that. Employers don't really care if a couple fingers get ground up into the spam if no customers notice and it's cheaper to lose fingers than to try and prevent finger accidents, but the employee cares a tremendous amount about losing fingers.

[KazigluBey]

It comes from having ideal conditions for Anglo-Saxon capitalism early on and then never developing a Labour party. Once you get exposed to socialism it doesn't seem such a terrible thing. If you never have social democratic politics to begin with it's the perennial boogeyman.

We've been exposed to socialism though. Social security, medicare, medicaid, firemen, police, freeways, utilities, military, it's all socialist. Americans are just too dumb or too ignorant to recognize them as such.

[Lummel]

It shouldn't be though. The German/Sweden/Dutch models are proof that a robust social welfare state would alleviate this tension.

Lol, but that would mean more expansion of the nanny-state and wealth redistribution ..............a non-starter from the American rightwing.

State involvement is fairly limited in those schemes and the Dutch model was devised in a neo-liberal context. If wage structures in those countries have been more equal its been for cultural not big state legal reasons.

It's funny, in a way, that a country that has not really been victimized by the abuse of socialism and communism breeds a level of resistance to socialism and communism that is stronger and more tenacious than in countries that have been savaged by the abuse. It's like the kid who got burned in a fire can still use a gas stove to cook, but the kid who never got bured by a fire is terrified by matches.

I believe that this is because when US parents tell their children about Father Christmas they also tell them about the Socialist Stana who will seize all their toys and redistribute them on the basis of need to other children if they misbehave.

That's why people in the USA have such an extreme reaction to the word 'socialism'.

We've been exposed to socialism though. Social security, medicare, medicaid, firemen, police, freeways, utilities, military, it's all socialist. Americans are just too dumb or too ignorant to recognize them as such.

Only in the USA could those things be described as socialism.

[Datepalm]

Now, I'm sure folks will disagree on how justified these various positions are, but that's not the point. I'm simply offering a very common reason why management so strongly opposes unionization.

What constitutes the minimal headcount for representing a bargaining unit in the US? (its a third here.)

It works the other way round as well, re bargaining units manipulation. (We may be talking at cross purposes - most of my experience is setting up unions, yours appears to be with (comically inept, amazingly powerful, slaveringly evil) extant ones) Employers can try to randomly add people to the BU, (i've gotten blatantly faked employee lists. seriously) demand to include contract workers or take them out, split up departments or unify a franchise, etc, etc. Whatever they need to bust up the union, basically - it's like that thing where they redraw voting districts in US States.

[Michael Jon Snow]

We've been exposed to socialism though. Social security, medicare, medicaid, firemen, police, freeways, utilities, military, it's all socialist. Americans are just too dumb or too ignorant to recognize them as such.

I am as anti-socialist as the next teabagger, but even I am not ready to turn over the military, firemen, or police services to the free markets. Transportation and utilities could benefit from more free market pressures, but still require a strong central regulation structure to be functional.

The debate needs to be about how much government is good and at what point it becomes the problem.

I am not a big fan of unions, but I understand why they exist and why they are actually needed. However, industry wide unions create a labor monopoly. In order for free markets to function, they need to be free.

Balefont, not every industry or area is the same, true. In some cases there is very little lateral movement opportunity. But that is not always the case. On a recent project 40 companies that hire union pipefitters requested bid documents.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

lockesnow,

true that. Employers don't really care if a couple fingers get ground up into the spam if no customers notice and it's cheaper to lose fingers than to try and prevent finger accidents, but the employee cares a tremendous amount about losing fingers.

That's what Worker's Compensation laws were written to prevent, discourage, and compensate for. If someone is injured while on the job they have specific protections at law and a streamlined system to get them medical treatment, funds to live upon, and if their injury is permanent, permanent compensation for that injury.

[Nukelavee]

Terra- I think the point was that any worker can bring any union into a workplace...but enough other workers have to agree to be represented by the same union for it to become unionized. So, the donut shop could have the teamsters as the union, or CAW, or whatever, but not one different union for each employee.

My buddy is union rep for his plant (btw - hates it with a passion), if I recall correctly, the union also has to be invited in, they can't just go door to door looking for members.

I don't think this is exactly an economic issue, or not only. As long as there is one region on Earth where production costs are lower, enabling a profit, it will eventually be exploited to do so. So, wages are constantly under threat of the less fortunate desperate crowds of potential workers.

I'm not likely saying this well, economic theory isn't my forte, but...ultimately, there is always somebody willing to do the same job as you for far less. If your employer can figure out a way to make use of that fact, it will. The workers only power is the ability to with hold labour, but the owners are already rich. They already "have", they just prefer to have more, and so they continue in business.

It's not about product, it's about ability to buy product, and if corporations with hold jobs, workers starve, not owners.

I guess I'm saying most businesses sooner or later look at people as a resource, they don't feel the responsibility towards their workers well being, they simply don't care.

[guag]

My buddy is union rep for his plant (btw - hates it with a passion), if I recall correctly, the union also has to be invited in, they can't just go door to door looking for members.

Sorry, I didn't understand this.

Do you mean within the plant? Like, a representative of X% of the employees can't ask the rest to join?

Or that the union of Plant X can't go to Plant Z and ask if anyone's interested?

And either way, why?

[Horza]

We've been exposed to socialism though. Social security, medicare, medicaid, firemen, police, freeways, utilities, military, it's all socialist. Americans are just too dumb or too ignorant to recognize them as such.

You're recapitulating just how far to the Liberal Right (using the UK/European sense) US political discourse is, here. Bismark came up with the first universal social insurance program, fer chrissake. States have maintained roads and public utilities for military purposes since the Romans and before. Nowhere but libertarian fantasyland does the privatisation of any of that make sense - but it's an acceptable position in US politics because you guys have never had a major political party that organically pulls in the other direction, like the Aus/NZ/UK Labo(u)r parties or European socialist parties. The Democrats have occasionally been that force but their political DNA isn't socialist or labourist - the US current ideological dynamic resembles 19thc. Whigs v Tories much more than 20thc Labo(u)r v Conservative systems of other Anglo-Saxon countries.

[mor2]

We've been exposed to socialism though. Social security, medicare, medicaid, firemen, police, freeways, utilities, military, it's all socialist. Americans are just too dumb or too ignorant to recognize them as such.

yes we are all part of a society, nevertheless Police, Fire department, army, infrastructure etc are not what socialism is about.

[VarysTheSpider]

I miss the days when socialism meant collective ownership of the means of production. I suppose that's as good an indicator as any of just how much ground the left have given up over the last thirty years.

ETA:

You're recapitulating just how far to the Liberal Right (using the UK/European sense) US political discourse is, here. Bismark came up with the first universal social insurance program, fer chrissake. States have maintained roads and public utilities for military purposes since the Romans and before. Nowhere but libertarian fantasyland does the privatisation of any of that make sense - but it's an acceptable position in US politics because you guys have never had a major political party that organically pulls in the other direction, like the Aus/NZ/UK Labo(u)r parties or European socialist parties. The Democrats have occasionally been that force but their political DNA isn't socialist or labourist - the US current ideological dynamic resembles 19thc. Whigs v Tories much more than 20thc Labo(u)r v Conservative systems of other Anglo-Saxon countries.

I don't even think it's just the US though. In the UK for example, last year each of the potential Labour party leaders were asked "do you consider yourself a socialist?" They all answered yes. Do they all support nationalising the energy companies, the banks, the manufacturers, the mines? Hell no. They just have this kind of idea that socialism means, to them, the government helping you out more than the other guys. And most people probably wouldn't know or care about the difference.

[Nukelavee]

Guag - two things, first - I'm not really certain about the specifics, plus, this refers to Canada.

People tend to refer to workplaces as union, or non-union. So, if a worker at a non-union "shop" wants his place of employment unionized, his first step is to get a rep from that union in contact with his coworkers. The union can't simply send reps around to non union shops, cold calling, hoping to add more bodies to the membership rolls. Even then, it requires a certain percentage of the eligable workers to be for the union before a formal proceeding (vote) is held with the entire workforce, requiring a majority of all the workers for the union to be established there.

On the other hand, unions get pretty jealous and possessive of job sites and work opportunities. I have no real idea how it's decided, but some sites (like, say, a nuclear powerplant), will have several unions active, from teamsters to pipefitters, and god forbid a teamster do anything that a pipefitter could be paid to do, or vice versa.

[paddington]

Post-79

I think the privitization of certian industries has been an absolute disaster for the British people. I'd feel much more inclined to vote for a clause 4 beliving labour party, than the current torylite shambles.

[peterbound]

firemen, police, freeways, utilities, military, it's all socialist. Americans are just too dumb or too ignorant to recognize them as such.

I never understand how the fuck Fire, PD, and especially the military get goat roped into this dumb ass socialism argument. The idea of American Capitalism has evolved through times of Private FD. The community recognized the need for an organized, centralized, local government controlled organization to replace the poorly functioning private Fire Brigades. Taxes and funding can be adjusted based on customer (the community's) satisfaction of the services provided by said government FD. Insurance rates are also affected by the ability of the FD to provide quality service, so the organization does have motivation to thrive and succeed, living up to a capitalist model.

The only argument would be where the funding comes from. FD, PD, or Military is hardly a distribution of wealth, merely a group of neighbors banding together to pay for a service that will protect them all in the long run, much like insurance. In a community that is connected by fields, houses, woods, the speed of fire is a great fear. Better to pay into the pot so that the neighbors house will be put out than have it spread to your domicile.

The Military argument is just fucking stupid. We need an armed force to protect our assists. Plain and simple. The movement is dependent on the monies created by the business that prosper in it's boundaries. It's beneficial for all involved to have an armed branch to protect those business interests both domestically and abroad.

ETA: Americans are plenty dumb and ignorant, on many an issue. This just isn't one of them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

My buddy is union rep for his plant (btw - hates it with a passion), if I recall correctly, the union also has to be invited in, they can't just go door to door looking for members.

Sure they can. They can go uninvited to the homes of employees any time they choose. Sometimes, 5-6 will show up late at night and suggest to the employee that it would be in his/her best interest to support the union. Sometimes they'll make repeat visits if the employee is not sufficiently convinced. If the employee has the temerity to speak against the union during the campaign, he might find his car has developed some additional key marks.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What constitutes the minimal headcount for representing a bargaining unit in the US? (its a third here.)

30% of the bargaining unit gets you an election. You need over 50% to be designated the exclusively collective bargaining rep.