Slashdot Mirror
Tech Firms Oppose Union Organizing
cedarhillbilly passes along a piece from TheHill.com on the chilly reception that tech firms and lobbying groups are giving to a bill promoting union formation, which has a chance of passing in a more strongly Democratic congress and with a Democratic president. "Up to now, large tech groups have been on the sidelines in what is likely to be one of the roughest fights in Congress next year. A few, however, are preparing to weigh in. That makes other tech lobbyists nervous that, by doing so, the industry could sacrifice relatively good relationships with Democrats and, therefore, jeopardize some of their other legislative priorities."
What we need instead is a professional guild association, much as the legal and medical professions have. Unions are more appropriate for low skilled industrial professions.
Corporatism != Free Market
Funny how Unions are also the reason that we have safe working conditions and a reasonable minimum wage in the UK.
I'm not denying that unionisation can bring downsides - strikes, unreasonable pay demands, political grandstanding etc - but without it we wouldn't have a lot of the benefits of collective bargaining that we have now.
I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive. It seems in the US that the party with more power (the employer) should be allowed to tread all over the weaker individuals in society (employees) because every last one of you is going to be that guy next.
You aren't. You're turkeys voting for christmas. Just to bring a seasonal theme in :)
I too was in the UFCW and came away from the experience with the opinion that bad employees need unions more than good employees. Good employees are so hard to come by at the wage level of UFCW members that employers are loathe to lose them for almost any reason.
Unions tend to put companies at a competitive disadvantage--auto industry, steel, etc. IMO, this isn't because they necessarily pay a higher wage, but also because it costs so much to have to keep a crappy employee. Higher admin costs, workplace morale, etc suffer. If you look into Trader Joe's, a non-union shop that pays the highest wages in the industry, you will see how well a company can do if they 1) pay a livable wage, 2) choose employees wisely, and 3) have a company culture that rewards effort and efficiency.
One of the most ridiculous things that I have ever seen was the UFCW paying people minimum wage to picket a non-union store that was paying a higher starting wage than the union store.
I couldn't agree more with what you've said. I was a member of the IBEW and while entry level wages were higher, top end wages were lower. Not to mention the dues and other contributions that were expected. Then the near pointless meetings. In every other labor job I held they were non-union and the starting wages were lower, but the overall environment was more friendly, and we got a lot more work done. In the end that lower starting wage when you compare the take home, was about the same. So basically in the union you made more to give it to the greedy people running the union. Now working as a sys admin, I would hate it I were somehow forced to be in a union. I might have to climb the management ladder just to stay out of one.
And this is why I'm for a Constitutional Amendment adding "2 term" term limits for all electable positions. We all know the old saying about power corrupting. Let's not give ANY politician of ANY stripe the amount of time in office needed to consolidate his or her power into anything approaching "absolute". We all know what happens then.
Far too many of our politicians have been in office far too long. Political office was SUPPOSED to be a "volunteer" short-term position. Now our "Imperial" senators and house members have platinum-plated health care, platinum-plated private schooling for their kids, and SOLID PLATINUM retirement plans. It's GOT to stop. Our senators have already proven time and again that they don't feel beholden to us as they should. It's time to remove them all and START OVER. This time with term limits and minimal pay.
Return power to where it belongs: The states and the People.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The article speaks about people possibly being intimidated into signing a petition to unionize.
Let's see how many people already feel intimidated to the point where they have to post as AC if they want to say anything good about this idea.
And for all those that blame GMs' problems on the unions, wake up - GM makes crap cars nobody wants - THAT is the problem with GM.
Have I ever been a member of a union? Yes - the Steelworkers (they don't just organize steel plants, you know :-)
Would I ever again join a union? Sure, depending on the circumstances.
Do I think unions are practical for IT? Yes. The image of the code-worker who is "too independent-thinking" to join a union is a self-defeating myth. Get over yourselves already. If nurses and bus drivers can have unions, why not IT workers?
I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive.
Because:
Good for employees at a cost to employers ==
socialism == evil
Flawless reasoning!
That unions were the mechanism that helped bring about safe working conditions and better wages doesn't mean that they were the only possible mechanism, just that they were the mechanism that became part of history. They deserve credit for this, but it doesn't necessarily make them relevant going forward.
At this point (in the U.S., I don't know about the UK), many of the worker protections are codified as law, and there is much greater recognition from employers that employees are an expensive resource, and that safety is often cheaper than training someone new.
Wage rules are trickier (their are plenty of employers that are happy to pay reasonable wages, but there are also plenty of employers who will do everything possible to dick over their employees). The claim that there are jobs not being done because of minimum wages rules is often made, but who knows.
I don't find unions offensive, but I am arrogant enough to believe that tying myself to Jim-Bob is going to weaken my negotiating position, not strengthen it, so I don't like it when people start talking about unions as a panacea.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I tend to agree with you about term limits, if for no other reason the fact that politicians almost universally oppose them. How bad can they be if that is the case?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Jeez I've been listening to this for 20 years. IT workers resist unionization. Why? I don't know but I suspect it has something to do with believing that each of you is more capable and special than anyone else. Even in companies like IBM who in the early 90's laid off a quarter million people, still, the remaining workers resist unionization.
"I don't find unions offensive, but I am arrogant enough to believe that tying myself to Jim-Bob is going to weaken my negotiating position, not strengthen it, so I don't like it when people start talking about unions as a panacea."
Oh, absolutely agreed, I'm not a member of a union myself, don't see the advantage to me personally. I just don't like it when people start saying they're useless/abusive/evil, as they've done good in the past and continue to help people. Usually people in low paid and less skilled jobs, who need help more than me and my software engineer buddies.
When your workers have good pay and benefits, that takes away from profits, and in a plutocracy such as ours the profits always outstrip any consideration for human beings and their needs.
If WalMart was unionized, you wouldn't have to pay those taxes that go to food stamps. The poor are REQUIRED to work in the US under TANF (which ended AFDC welfare in 1996), so those food stamps are another government giveaway to the rich, like that 700 billion that went to the banks who still aren't making loans.
Unions are good for everyone except the corporates.
The head of a major non-union airline in the early 80s (I think it was Eastern, whatever company it was has since become union) said wisely "any company that gets a union deserves one". Your workers create your profits and your wealth. Bargain unfairly and they will come to bargain collectively.
You owe your workers, the generators of your wealth, a living. If your business is sound you owe them a decent living.
Want crime rates down? Raise wages. You'll find that most poor people are far more generous and honest than most rich people (not to say that many rich aren't honest or that all poor folks are).
I've been re-reading Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, the story of a Republican who wakes up and finds that he's turned into a Democrat overnight.
Humbug to you too, Mr. Bush.
Free Martian Whores!
Oh, and the company that pays them wouldn't drop them like that if it suited the bottom line?
The days of respecting and being loyal to the company have long gone, because the company doesn't respect, and certainly isn't loyal to, you.
The union, on the other hand, will tend to be loyal to their members, will fight for their rights, and so on. (Unions aren't perfect, but under a capitalism system, they are often better than nothing.)
----
More generally, it amazes me that so many "free market" types hate unions. But they don't have any trouble with corporations and so on colluding to keep wages down.
That's the trouble with those who want a perfectly free capitalist market (a contradiction in terms). The want to give all the power to the bosses, and screw the workers, even when joining together in a union is good for the workers interests. They don't like unions because they don't really want a free market, they want a bosses market.
Fuck that.
I wank in the shower.
That unions were the mechanism that helped bring about safe working conditions and better wages doesn't mean that they were the only possible mechanism, just that they were the mechanism that became part of history.
Yeah, well, if they're the only mechanism in recorded history to achieve that in any significant way, that might be a good reason to take some note. Wouldn't it at least be a good idea to work out in very clear terms what other mechanisms are to take over and how and why they are likely to work, before kicking out the only thing we know works?
sudo ergo sum
At this point (in the U.S., I don't know about the UK), many of the worker protections are codified as law,
How did that come to be? How long do you think those laws would last under conservative government if the unions were gone?
and there is much greater recognition from employers that employees are an expensive resource, and that safety is often cheaper than training someone new.
Are you joking? This is supposed to be the sole drive for safety? What if somehow that equation changes? What if you're in a line of business where it does not work that way?
I don't consider unions a panacea either, but I do think a lot more people would be better off as members than currently are.
There will always be people who, as you say, are better off on their own. But most of the people who think they are in that group only think so because they haven't chanced to find out yet.
sudo ergo sum
I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive. It seems in the US that the party with more power (the employer) should be allowed to tread all over the weaker individuals in society (employees) because every last one of you is going to be that guy next.
I don't believe that's true. First, organized labor has far more power than employers (see below). Also, I think that America, by and large, dislikes the state of organized labor as a practical matter, not a theoretical one. There are a few good reasons why many Americans - myself included - dislike the unions that exist in this country. That doesn't mean we dislike the notion of unions. Those are two very distinct points that you lump together.
Here's why I dislike the major US unions I'm familiar with:
*Many unions were run by organized crime for decades. Some still seem to embrace that legacy.
*The balance of power is tipped very heavily toward organized labor and against employers due to the US's labor laws - companies are legally required to negotiate with striking unions, whereas union members can get jobs during a strike. That (and other) imbalances basically give unions a license to print money, bleeding companies dry until they go under or leave the US.
*American unions are the antithesis of a meritocracy - they make it absolutely impossible to fire incompetent employees, and negotiate for pay based on time served as opposed to skill. Both tend to rankle Americans (such as myself) who believe in working hard to make something of yourself.
*Lastly and probably most important, very often unions don't represent the wishes of their employees. Especially with big unions, they're very lucrative for the leadership which is very often out of touch with the rank and file. It's easy to rip off the workers (which is one reason the mob got involved with unions early on). Now, the unions are pushing for rules that eliminate secret ballots in union elections, the most fundamental tenet of any democratic process. There is no possible reason for that except to intimidate workers and prevent them from keeping the union accountable.
I'm not against unions in theory, I'm against the ones that exist in the US in practice.
Where have you been for the last two years? Isn't unrestricted lending and a $50 billion Ponzi scheme operated from Wall Street, no less, evidence that wild capitalism is still going strong?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No.
The government has no business telling private citizens what they can earn. That's Communism, and antithetical to freedom. Politicians, on the other hand, serve their people. The public SHOULD demand that there be a limit on the financial rewards for serving. Again, being a politician is supposed to be a TEMPORARY SERVANT position for people passionate about their country. It's not supposed to be a career or an exclusive club for dynasty families lining their pockets off the public till.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Maybe he honestly believes that unions are a good thing for the American people, and he bemoans the fact that few people agree with him. Maybe he thinks that if this bill passes, more people will agree with him that unions are good, and they'll thank him later for passing this bill.
Just because something is unpopular, doesn't mean it's wrong.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
When I mention ideologues, I mean those that adhere to every plank, nail, and splinter of the party platform. It's one of the things that's gotten California in so much trouble. Democrats will not cut any spending (unless it's for something Republicans want), and Republicans will not raise any taxes. It's a deadlock on something where there cannot be a deadlock. I'm generally against raising taxes, but the state has a projected deficit over the next 18 months of $42 billion. Both sides have to give ground, whether or not people and business will be taking a hit. The current crop of ideologues simply figures that they can out-wait the other.
This is the worst situation we've faced, but it's not the first where this has happened, nor will it be the last.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Thats because Unions work well for labor industries, not white-collar industries.
I know some people in a union locally, in a labor industry. Even they hate it - people fly through to better jobs and better pay based on seniority and not ability. If you want to be measured based on seniority and education purely instead of ability and skill, by all means, unionize.
I can not imagine the tech industry unionizing. It would be like saying 'anyone can do this job, it takes no skill'.
I have no formal education, but I consider myself fairly good at what I do. Unions would have crushed my ability to move up.
.
Precisely. Unions have a long term interest in the company, the executives often have a mid term interest in the stock price.
I don't think that's it.
Ok, if you dont think that the purpose of this is to effectively eliminate the secret ballot then why do you think the unions want it so bad? If its such a non-issue why dont they take the elimination of the secret ballot out of the bill?
In the 100 or so years of union history in this country, isn't it more common for corporations to strong arm employees out of a union than these magical union bosses?
No, its really not. Unions used to be heavily infested by mobsters once upon a time. Its true that corporations do cross the line sometimes and there should be and are laws against that. But to say that only corporations resort to intimidation or that they do so commonly is not accurate. There are laws to prevent retaliating against employees who sign those petitions and they are usually respected. The United States is a country of hundreds of millions of people though so there are certainly exceptions to the rule.
Here is the fundamental problem with your claim that bosses are intimidating workers into voting against the union on the secret ballot: The bosses DONT KNOW how an individual employee voted and therefore any threats of "you had better vote this way" have no teeth. This is the whole point of a secret ballot.
As you can see from my four-digit ID, I've been hanging out on Slashdot for a long time. Whenever the union issue comes up here, I notice that there are an awful lot of negative comments against unions, more than there are favoring them. Since I'm firmly on the pro-union side, it's incumbent on me to chime in.
First, regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, there is a lot of misinformation about this that is being unchallenged by the mainstream media. One myth is that this act will eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing. That is NOT true. The employees will still be able to request that a secret ballot election be held. It will eliminate the employer's right to demand a secret ballot for the purpose of delaying union certification, and in the interim, intimidate employees to reject the union.
Now regarding the attitude generally displayed here toward organized labor, anecdotes prove nothing. Tired old tales about your uncle's friend's co-worker who showed up to work drunk, and caused your uncle's friend to lose his thumb, but couldn't be fired because of his union, may convince lots of people that unions are a bad thing, but they are largely apocryphal. Even where they are true in isolated cases, it is an indicator of incompetent management, not a necessary impact of the union. If you are managing a unionized work-force, and you are too lazy to even read their contract (which would tell you how to dismiss such an employee), then you are the problem, not the union.
Fair analysis of data (e.g. http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/datazone_rtw_index) indicates that unions have a positive impact upon the distribution of wealth, and general level of prosperity. Moreover, as unions decline in influence nationally, living standards decline both in the unionized and non-unionized sectors. Median real wages among those of you who live in so-called "right to work" states are lower than for those who live in states that don't interfere in the membership requirement that is written into union contracts. Yes, I'm sure that you may have read some report from the Heritage Foundation, or Cato Institute that said otherwise. But if you believe those sources of information, you may as well watch Fox news. If you must rely so heavily on anecdotes, talk to older members of your family, and ask them about whether or not there was ever such a thing as a "stay-at-home" mom. Ask them how could anyone afford to live that way.
I was raised in the '60s and '70s. When I was a kid, my father went to work in a factory every weekday. My mother did not work outside the home. This was typical among most of the families that I knew. Forty man-hours a week, for a family of four (six in our case), performed by a man without a college education, (in fact my dad didn't even have a high school diploma), was sufficient to maintain middle class living standards in typical American families at that time. We had health insurance, owned our homes, had leisure time, vacations, and typically, a full time mother. When my dad's company laid off workers temporarily during a lull, my father's seniority was honored. He felt bad for dismissed coworkers, but he didn't cut back spending, or miss any house payments. My father retired with a pension that kept him from falling into abject poverty for the rest of his days. That pension was bargained for by his union. It was not provided by his employer out of the goodness of their hearts.
As for myself, as a young man, I joined a trade union, served an apprenticeship and became a journeyman. But recognizing the direction of the political viability of unions, I decided to go to college part time later in life, and become an engineer. I paid my own way, and graduated nine years ago without the debt of a college loan. That was one of the benefits of a union wage. Today, though, working as a college educated professional, I barely approach the living standards that my family had in my childhood.
"...but back then you could DEFINATELY live the "Leave it to Beaver" life without having a union job."
Absolutely true. But the only reason that the Ward Cleavers, who didn't join unions, got decent paychecks was because the unions had raised expectations for everyone. Ward would only become a professional, if professionals made significantly better money than carpenters. And carpenters, both union and non-union, were doing well because of unions, thus Ward was able to command upper middle class living standards as a professional.