begin quoting Robert Donovan as of Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:30:07PM -0700: > Stewart Stremler wrote: [snip] > >Once unions do their job and becomes sources of political power in and > >of themselves, is it _possible_ to prevent 'em from being co-opted by > >the politically-minded for their (the politically-minded) own ends? > > > I would like to think so, but I strongly suspect not.
I think a good first step would be to disallow unions from being
employers, as that's an obvious conflict of interest. Unions should be
run by volunteers of those they represent, and all finances should be
utterly transparent to all members.
(Perhaps a second step would be to have unions automatically dissolve
after a period of time. Thus, a union is a means to correct the abuses
due to an inequity of power between management and labor. Once that's
been corrected, and the correction is holding, then the union is no
longer needed and ought to go away.)
> >Last I heard, non-union members paid dues to the union for the ability
> >to NOT be a member.
>
> Can't get around THAT for fairness can you? ;-)
I see the reasoning behind it. If the union is representing you, and
you opt not to contribute, they you're just a leech. Why worry about
making nicey-nicey to the leeches and hangers-on?
It's not like you can opt-out of taking advantage of the increased
benefits and pay.
> The UFCW, of which I was a member under protest for 14 years, shot down
> a similar ballot measure a few years ago. That law waould have only
> required the members to pay for that portion of their dues that went to
> actual benefits, like retirement and healthcare, if any.
Presumably, everything the union does is a 'benefit'.
> The trouble(for
> the union) was that most of that was paid for by the employer. I forget
> the exact amount, but I think it was about 40% of my dues went to
> political contributions with which I disagreed.
Didn't you get a vote in the union? If not direct, then at least for
representatives?
> I was never able to get
> a straight answer as to where the rest of it went. They were listed as
> "administrative costs."
Yah. Full transparency of finances seems like a better and better idea.
"Open Business" anyone? :)
> I wouldn't be surprised to find that much of
> that translated to salaries of those who work directly for the Union. In
Another problem I see with unions -- they're employers. The manager-class
has taken over the entity that represents labor. Seems like a recipe
for disaster...
> fact, in all my time with the union, the only time the shop
> stewards (went through three of them) were ever interested in talking to
> me was the two or three time a year they came to ask for more money in
> some way.
High turnover is a good thing, isn't it?
Were the stewards volunteers or employees of the unions?
> Strike fund, market share protection fund, etc, all of these
> are political in nature.
Strike funds are there to give the union the ability to have a
meaningful strike. And that's really the primary trick in the union
bag -- "treat your employees right or you don't get ANY work done" --
so that shouldn't be an issue, so long as if a strike was called for
you would get access to the strike fund.
Market-share protection? Not so much political as economic.
Now, supporting candidates, yah, that's political. The rest? Not so much.
> I was particularly put off by the guilt trip
> they tried to lay on you if you even hinted at saying no. Their line was
> that you weren't giving your fair share if you didn't want to give more.
Naturally. That's their perception.
That fact that they didn't stop to look at it from your point of view is
sad; but then, most folks don't stop to look at _anything_ from anything
other than their own point of view.
> I asked one of these folks if they were required to give to this fund,
> and was told that they were not. I asked how much the Union was paying
> him per year, he wouldn't give me a straight answer, but I managed to
> get him to admit to between 35 and 40 thousand per year. I was living
> out of my camper van at that time on less that $10,000/year. I told this
> jerk that if he ever tried to tell me again that I was not giving enough
> when he was making more than four times what I did and wasn't required
> to contribute, I'd throw him down the break room stairs. That
Heh.
You should have tried for _his_ job.
> conversation didn't end well. The problem was I /couldn't/ say no. If
> I'd refused, they would simply have garnished my already lousy wages.
See, you should've told 'em that you needed better wages so you could
contribute more. Use the union to improve your lot in life -- that's
their nominal purpose, after all. :)
"I'll gladly contribute an extra $1,000/year if you can get me
half-again raise."
> Whatever unions once may have been or done, whatever good they might be
> able to do, it is my opinion that there is nothing that unions do that
> could not be just as well, if not better, accomplished, today, here and
> now, without them.
_HOW_?
That's the crux.
As corrupt and useless as unions are, they were *necessary*. And if by
some administrative fiat, all unions were rendered illegal ('cuz they're
useless, corrupt, and could be replaced with something that works just as
well if not better, in theory) and were to vanish over the next month,
how long do you think it would take before it would be necessary to
reinvent 'em?
I give it a one to three years.
And another five to ten, minimum, to get 'em back.
How, today, can we accomplish the same thing (or better) that unions do,
without unions? How do employees protect themselves without banding
together to act in concert?
[snip]
> I see no reason that I or anyone else should be forced to adopt a
> political agenda in the process.
Well, you're already defining "political" in rather broad terms. So who
decides if some agenda is political or not? If you disagree, and you're
forced to pay, is it still a political agenda?
It would be nice if employers were ethical and had the best interests of
their employees at heart. Those businesses that *do* (treat their
employees right) tend to be able to function without unions (Henry's
comes to mind). Many of those without unions still benefit from the
idea of a union, as the threat of unionizing is a significant check on
management trickery.
(Piss off the employees enough, they might unionize, even if that hurts
them as well -- in the hopes that it will hurt the employer more. This is
human nature... screw me, I might hurt myself If I can screw you in return.)
-Stewart "Unions are like Howard Stern -- just glad he's out there." Stremler
pgpMyG9jnD9G7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
