A silly place filled with caffeine induced ramblings of this person named KarmaGirl....or something.
Published on November 2, 2004 By KarmaGirl In Current Events

Unions.  Great in the beginning, bad now.  Why?  It takes the power away from the company to do business as needed.  In Brad's article: https://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=33403 he talks about Unions as a reason why companies are outsourcing to other countries.  And, I agree completely.  It's a huge problem.

I'll take an example that I have been watching very closely- it's where my husband works.  He works for a diesel engineering/manufacturing company that is owned by one of the big 3.

Right now, my husbands company is divided.  One part (the line workers) are in a Union that is about to strike.  The engineering area voted in a Union, but have not gotten a contract yet.  So, the line is about to strike because they want more money.  They already get about $20 to $25 per hour, and they want more.  Now, none of what they do is skilled trade.  No education past high school needed.  But, because they are in a Union, they get a premium wage and it becomes almost impossible for an employer to fire them because of how many ways that an employee can bring suit against them if they can find some way of claiming wrongful discharge.  Without the Union, we are an "at will" state. 

So, what is the company thinking of doing?
1) Moving the plant to a State that has a lower cost of living
2) Outsourcing 90% of everything to stay competitive

Why?  Because the labor costs so much and they have little control over their workers.  Then, on top of it, if they don't agree to some outrageous contract, the workers strike and they lose that productive time (an idle factory still costs a load per day just to exist) until they come to agreement.  The picket line also poses a risk to the workers who rightfully can work who are not in the Union.  Who wants to cross an angry picket line?

Look what happened when the fuel prices soared.  The turn over in truck drivers was swift.  A lot of companies with Unions in them lost their bids because they couldn't be competitive.  Truck drivers now makes less per hour then they did before.  If we aren't careful, this will happen all over the place.  Union houses will not be able to compete, so they will start outsourcing.

Another example of a Union gone bad: SBC (was Ameritech aka: the Baby Bell's, like Michigan Bell).  They were all Union, which was fine when they were a monopoly.  What happened when they were forced to break up their monopoly and let other companies in?  They couldn't be competitive.  They downsized like mad, then contracted all their work for less than they were paying their employees.  Who suffered with that one?  The consumer.

So, when you call for support someplace and you get "Anne" in India, just remember that it was Bush's fault that we lost jobs.  It has nothing to due with American's wanting too much money for low skilled labor, or that we have to live extravagant lifestyles. 

Go vote today!


Comments
on Nov 02, 2004
KarmaGirl:

Well, as a long time observer of business, I think you need to look at the process of how the U.S. rose to be the economic powerhouse it WAS and why the future is now so bleak. First, unions protected the worker against the management that wanted to give nothing to the worker. (See Andrew Carnegie for some good descriptions of how owners saw workers early in the century).

Then after basic rights (a good wage, adequate vacation, safeguards against physical threat) became established in the 1930's through 1950's unions moved towards a more "caretaker" position in the workplace, building benefit programs that elevated the union worker abover the non-union employee.

But in the 1960's and 1970's unions began to become adjuncts of management, not negotiating on behalf of workers but rather acting as management tools to ensure that benefits remained high but allowing for management to share responsibilities. So, they didn't fight layoffs as much as they did lowering benefits for the workers who survived.

Then in the 1980's and 1990's companies built plants overseas as well as Canada and Mexico to see if product quality could be maintained in non-unionized environments. When it only suffered small drops in efficiency and productivity the race started to see who could move production off-shore as quickly as possible. Unions, seeing that all jobs would eventually be lost started to move against management again in political campaigns designed to make the citizen aware of what we were losing.

The unions were culpable in the process, but not the reason why it occured. It occured because every owner is greedy, doesn't care about his employees or their families and wants maximum profit with minimum liability. Why does that sound so much like Andrew Carnegie? Because Carnegie speaks more about human nature than Freud ever thought of doing.
on Nov 02, 2004

It occured because every owner is greedy, doesn't care about his employees or their families and wants maximum profit with minimum liability.

You think that a company is greedy because they don't want to pay unskilled labor $25 per hour, give them 20+ paid vacation days, paid *premium* medical, and a sizable retirement plan but still not have control over how they maintain human resources? 

Unions were a great thing back when they were formed.  However, there are so many laws that say how you can treat employees, that they simply aren't needed in today's work force.

You know why people were fighting to get a Union in to the area that my husband works?  Because it gives them "job security" because it becomes almost impossible to fire somebody.  They won't receive better pay.  They won't get better medical.  But, they know that with the Union, since they have been their quite some time, that they can just coast on through to retirement.

Here's a question for you- when there is a recession and companies are forced to lay off people, which do you think should happen:
1) The lay off goes by seniority only and does not reflect work performance
2) The lay off goes strictly by work performance.  Those who work the hardest stay, and lose who don't work hard go.

If I owned a company, I would choose #2.  If you are a Union company, you are forced to choose #1.  And, to me, that is just saying "Hey!  Get a Union job and just stay there!  You don't even have to work hard!"

Blame businesses all you want, but what it really comes down to is that too many Americans want a premium wage for mediocre work.

There will be a big change in the US sooner or later.  It has to.  We have put way too high of a price tag on what our labor is worth, and it will have a downfall.  It won't be pretty, either.

on Nov 02, 2004
KarmaGirl:

I understand what you are saying but having read The Gospel of Wealth I can tell you that unions can serve a purpose, the problem is that want unions want is in direct opposition to profits. So I understand why the situation can be so difficult.

What we are seeing in the U.S. is what England went through 100 years ago when industry left England with it's shops and services industry. The key to that will be that unions aren't necessary because most workers won't have benefits anyway. It's not a pretty picture when a country gives up a manufacturing base.
on Nov 02, 2004

So, a book will give the ultimate truth on if something is needed or not?  What exactly is the purpose of a Union in today's work world?

I base my judgment on real life examples and what is happening due to the greed of the Unions (workers).  Where my husband works, they are already paid well and get good benefits.  But, that wasn't enough, so they voted in a Union (which my husband was against) to get *more*.  That is greed of the worker.  That greed will eventually be our American downfall. 

People find it fine to buy a foreign car because they "get more for their money", but think it's awful when cr companies outsource.  Why do American cars cost too much?  Union wages.