Wisconsin

[AdamA]

Anyone have any strong opinions re Wisconsin?

[MediumTex]

Democracy in action.

Nothing too surprising.  No troops firing into crowds.

[moda0306]

I'd like to see less union representation in our government, more, but smaller (smaller, less powerful unions) union representation in our public, and MUCH more unionizatin in China and India.

IMO, the status of a middle class in our world depends on China and India having some type of union movement.

[AdamA]

IMO, the status of a middle class in our world depends on China and India having some type of union movement.

Very intersting point.  Hadn't thought about it in these terms.  You think it'll happen?

[moda0306]

Adam,

I don't really know... but all I know is that unionization in the US will be self-defeating unless it happens in 3rd world countries that are "taking our jobs."

Think about it, Chinese people benefit as they continue to probably be cheaper labor and grow fast but have better bargaining power.  The US middle class benefits because their labor is more competitive.  Multinational corporations suffer because they can't play to the lowest-common-denominator throughout the world to slowly erode at the middle class.

My 2 cents.  Though I DO fall in the camp that is somewhat concerned about public-employee unions in the current environment.

[AdamA]

Though I DO fall in the camp that is somewhat concerned about public-employee unions in the current environment.

Meaning what, exactly?

[Lone Wolf]

A public employee union is a cartel that operates against the interests of the taxpayer.  They are able to bribe their own bosses with the taxpayer's money.  That this causes problems is completely unsurprising.

Of course, people should be free to organize in any way that they choose.  However, obligating taxpayers and private businesses (by force of law) to pay whatever these organizations demand is simple looting.  It's not sustainable and we'd be much better off without it.

[moda0306]

Lone Wolf,

I have a question/problem with a couple of your assertions:

"obligating taxpayers and private business (by force of law)" - Unless an agreement is already entered into and a contract is broken, when does the force of law come in forcing companies/governments to comply with union "demands?"  I don't know much about the laws/regulations around unions and employment, but that seems like a stretch to make that statement.  Aren't unions and employers usually left to bargain on their own?

"People should be free to organize in any way that they choose" - I tend to agree with this almost 100%, but at some point, both corporations and unions become too large and powerful for competition to sustain itself.  I'm not saying I know the answer to this problem, but it does appear to be a market-error that's unsustainable and would maybe indicate some nuanced thinking to the general liberty rule that I tend to have.

[moda0306]

Though I DO fall in the camp that is somewhat concerned about public-employee unions in the current environment.

Meaning what, exactly?

The fact that the person sitting on the other side of the table rarely has an interest in bargaining strongly for the taxpayers.  They usually have much more of an interest in handing out future benefits that will come to roost far after their tenure at the government is up.  My "concern" doesn't mean I think they should be illegalized (I don't know much about how unions work so I don't pretend to know how to regulate them, or if they even should be).  I just wonder about the interests of the persons bargaining.  I tend to have a dislike and distrust of entities that seem to have the deck stacked in their favor.  Large multinational corporations, government unions and their members, the uber-wealthy, the banks, etc.  It just puts me at disease.

[AdamA]

At some point, both corporations and unions become too large and powerful for competition to sustain itself. 

I think this is true, but I don't think it's so much related to the size of a corporation as it is their ability to manipulate governments in such a way as to exempt themselves from rules that smaller businesses are requried to follow (which I guess is related to their size).

[moda0306]

At some point, both corporations and unions become too large and powerful for competition to sustain itself. 

I think this is true, but I don't think it's so much related to the size of a corporation as it is their ability to manipulate governments in such a way as to exempt themselves from rules that smaller businesses are requried to follow (which I guess is related to their size).

I think it goes beyond manipulating government... I think it was an intro econ class where you learn about bargaining power's effect on what a "perfect competition" supply/demand curve looks like.  Not only is this a product of the free-market and can exist with extremely limited government intervention, but it's unsustainable as if 1 company has far superior bargaining power in an industry because its large (microsoft, Wal Mart) it will become very unlikely that other companies can compete, and as they dwindle, said large company will gain even MORE bargaining power.

[Lone Wolf]

"obligating taxpayers and private business (by force of law)" - Unless an agreement is already entered into and a contract is broken, when does the force of law come in forcing companies/governments to comply with union "demands?"  I don't know much about the laws/regulations around unions and employment, but that seems like a stretch to make that statement.  Aren't unions and employers usually left to bargain on their own?

Under a normal free market, you can freely associate (or not) with any entity that you wish.  Once your business is unionized, you no longer have that choice.  You are forced to bargain collectively with that entity.  (This goes back to the Wagner Act of the 30s.)

In a free labor market, an employer and employee can go their separate ways at any time for any reason.  Having seen a family friend experience (and, happily, defeat) a vote to unionize his family business, I can tell you that the difference between free and forced association is massive.

Having said that, I object much more strenuously to public employee unions.  If unions make a business like GM unsustainable, that business can always enter bankruptcy and either be liquidated or restructured.  My friend's business would have been hurt by forced unionization, but he could always choose to sell the business.

With a public employee union, there's no profit\loss exposure to reality.  Nobody advocates for the taxpayer because the employees can directly bribe (via contribution) to their bosses.  The conflict of interest is baked right into the whole arrangement.

"People should be free to organize in any way that they choose" - I tend to agree with this almost 100%, but at some point, both corporations and unions become too large and powerful for competition to sustain itself.  I'm not saying I know the answer to this problem, but it does appear to be a market-error that's unsustainable and would maybe indicate some nuanced thinking to the general liberty rule that I tend to have.

This is only an issue when such organizations can engage in force or coercion.  With governments as large and powerful as they are today, the most efficient way to apply force and coercion to your enemies is by purchasing the services of a politician.  Government's proper role is as a guardian against force and coercion.  The danger that you rightly point out is that it can be bent to be an agent of force and coercion.  I think this is mostly a function of government being much too large.

Without the issues of force and coercion, you find that the dangers of huge corporation or huge labor unions generally go away.  Cartels are unstable and impossible to maintain without the ability to apply force.  (I see that Adam has made the same point.)

Think about what would happen to Wal-Mart if they attempted to raise their prices in order to capture more profit out of their low overhead.  The market would eat them alive.

[moda0306]

Lone Wolf,

Here is where the water gets muddied.  Union shops are not allowed to hire non-union workers, and while that may seem like coercion, haven't they voluntarily entered into a contract to be a union shop? Kind of like when you enter into a contract with Verizon... yeah it stinks when you want to switch and they charge you a penalty, but you CHOSE to sign a 2-year contract.  It may be rigid and have its downsides, but it's better than paying full price for a new phone.

Likewise, unions may be rigid and inflexible, but to get access to all that labor employers CHOOSE to "sign a contract" (for lack of a better term) to NOT associate with non-union labor.  It may seem like coercion, but they are free to hire non-union workers as long as they haven't agreed not to.

All this is my impression based on limited research and discussion... point out if I'm mistaken.

[MediumTex]

I think it's also to remember that there is something fundamentally absurd about the whole concept of a public sector labor union.

Let's think about what the whole premise is behind labor unions in the first place--they are a mechanism for the proletariat to protect itself against the predatory nature of the capitalist owners of the means of production.  It is a way of levelling this power imbalance.

In the public sector, there is simply no equivalent to the capitalist owners of the means of production--the "exploiter" of the workers in the public sector is who?  Is it the taxpayers?  Which ones?  The whole thing begins to seem non-sensical if we are trying to understand it through the lens of labor/management relations and the role of unions in that process.

What we are witnessing in the public sector right now is the same "arrival of tomorrow" that no one worried about decades ago when making promises that were heavily back-loaded.  This is the same problem that sunk GM.

[moda0306]

I've heard the argument that "cartels are hard to maintain" and therefore are self regulatory and I don't buy it.  Maybe there are difficulties with maintaing a cartel, but to say that anti-trust laws are unnecessary as long as government doesn't favor certain companies over others is a stretch if you ask me.

Dramatically increasing bargaining power is self-sustaining.  Cartels may be unstable, but are Monopolies?  What about the monopolies of the 1800's?  Did those exist simply because of government favors?  Cartels and monopolies don't have to overtly steal or coerce other companies and their employees to either eliminate or weaken competition.  Their control of the markets has that natural effect.  They've got supreme efficiencies and market control that nobody else can muster.

This is especially important when you look at the media's limited diversity and connection to parent corporations with no apparent interest in the media business.  Do you think we'd have more or less GE/NBC alliances if we took a lazzais fair attitude towards all this?

[moda0306]

MT,

That's my main qualm with public employee unions.... but at the same time, how does a government go about outlawing collective bargaining even against itself?  A union, for all its beaurocracy, rigidity and socialistic tendencies is nothing more than an organization that is freely joined by those who wish to collectively bargain... it's not a governmental entity.  How would one eliminate a public-employee union without it being unconstitutional?  Claim they're a labor cartel and manipulating the market?  Maybe.

I think the long-term aspects of decisions are lost on even some of the smartest people, and unions or not, we'll continue to have short-term dividends prioritized over long-term concerns in situations of all sorts.  It's human error... maybe not anything wrong with institutions as they are today. Like you said in another thread, while pensions may be paternalistic, 401(k)'s are hardly perfect, either.

[MediumTex]

The bargaining right of public sector unions is one of those things that differs dramatically between theory and practice.

I took a public sector labor law course in law school and I was amazed at the way the collective bargaining process itself (even if it leads to no favorable changes in wages or working conditions) can be used as a tool of harrassment to make it more difficult for public agencies to function.

By demanding that every single change in an agency's operations be subject to bargaining, it can become impossible to make even basic executive-level decisions.

When people say that the public agencies signed up for bargaining in the first place, many really did not.  They were simply following the law that says that where there is a collective bargaining unit you must negotiate in good faith.  The meaning of good faith has been subject to much litigation, which makes dealing with the public sector unions that much more difficult.

I really don't have a dog in this fight.  I grew up in a union household and had a parent who worked for a quasi-public entity (Postal Service), so I certainly understand the arguments that the unions make and in many cases they do a good job for their members.  OTOH, as an armchair philosopher and economist, the whole premise behind public sector unions seems iffy (where are the capitalists against whom the workers need to be protected?).

The process we are seeing today of promises that were made in much better times being broken or re-negotiated is going to create a lot of tension, no matter what.  I don't think it's so much one side or the other being right or wrong--I think that the promises never should have been made in the first place, and it was really the sunny and naive optimism from back in the 1950s and 1960s that created the mess we have today.

This public sector union situation is in many ways a microcosm of what our whole society is going to be wrestling with in the future.

[Lone Wolf]

Here is where the water gets muddied.  Union shops are not allowed to hire non-union workers, and while that may seem like coercion, haven't they voluntarily entered into a contract to be a union shop? Kind of like when you enter into a contract with Verizon... yeah it stinks when you want to switch and they charge you a penalty, but you CHOSE to sign a 2-year contract.  It may be rigid and have its downsides, but it's better than paying full price for a new phone.

Right, but union shop or no, once your business has unionized you are required by force of law to engage in collective bargaining with the union.  Being a "union shop" just means that new employees must also join the union and pay dues.  Collective bargaining must happen either way.

There's an important option in what are normally called "negotiations".  In most negotiations, you can conclude that you no longer wish to negotiate with the other party, get up, and walk away from the table.  Once unionization takes place, that's over.  You are legally obligated to forever be negotiating partners with the labor union, regardless of any desire you may or not have to associate with them.  You must negotiate with them.

All that being said, I only emphasize these points to clarify my objection.  Public employee unions are IMO far more problematic of a concept.

[moda0306]

So if you have 20 employees and make widgets, and they choose to unionize, you MUST bargain with them?  You can't say "Sorry but you're all fired and I'm going to find some new employees."  Am I understanding this correctly?

That seems excessive to say the least.

[MediumTex]

RE the subject of unions in China and India:

This is going to be a big problem for many reasons.

First, if labor rates in the world's sweatshops rise, consumer goods in the U.S. are going to get more expensive, which means that our standard of living will fall (since I am assuming our wages are in no danger of rising any time soon).  As for the possible repatriation of some U.S. jobs, I think most of them are gone for good.  Some will come back, but not many.

Second, early stage labor movements tend to be bloody affairs.  I have no reason to think that will be different in the future, except the bloodiness will be on a much larger scale in the two countries mentioned above.  I don't look forward to seeing what sort of unintended consequences might flow from militant labor movements in two of the world's most populous nations.

BTW, has anyone read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?  If you want to read something that will leave you deeply ambivalent about the whole concept of globalization and the potential for unfettered global free market capitalism, I urge you to read this book.  The arguments she makes will help one understand the dynamics of how any emerging economy labor movement is likely to unfold (her perspective is biased, but her reporting and analysis are good).

[MediumTex]

So if you have 20 employees and make widgets, and they choose to unionize, you MUST bargain with them?  You can't say "Sorry but you're all fired and I'm going to find some new employees."  Am I understanding this correctly?

That seems excessive to say the least.

Are you talking private or public sector?

If it's private sector, is depends on what state you are in.

If it's public sector, I don't know the answer to the question, but there is clearly some mechanism for public sector unions to compel the government to come to the bargaining table.  The thing to remember in the public sector setting is also that Democratic politicians rely on labor contributions to get elected and re-elected.  I'm not saying that this is any worse than any other special interest buying access, but it influences the outcomes in ways that are predictable.

[moda0306]

Private sector.  I don't know of too many governments with 20 employees that make widgets... further, what is a widget anyway?

jk.

[Lone Wolf]

So if you have 20 employees and make widgets, and they choose to unionize, you MUST bargain with them?  You can't say "Sorry but you're all fired and I'm going to find some new employees."  Am I understanding this correctly?

That seems excessive to say the least.

I have always been under the impression that the NLRA forbid you from hiring or firing any person based on their membership in or association with a labor union.  I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

However, MT seems to be aware of some state-to-state variance on this question, so I'll give my standard "I Am Not a Lawyer" disclaimer... especially since he is! 

[MediumTex]

So if you have 20 employees and make widgets, and they choose to unionize, you MUST bargain with them?  You can't say "Sorry but you're all fired and I'm going to find some new employees."  Am I understanding this correctly?

That seems excessive to say the least.

I have always been under the impression that the NLRA forbid you from hiring or firing any person based on their membership in or association with a labor union.  I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

However, MT seems to be aware of some state-to-state variance on this question, so I'll give my standard "I Am Not a Lawyer" disclaimer... especially since he is!   :)

What I meant about state law was the "open shop" vs. "closed shop" variations from state to state, which relates more to whether an employee can be required to join the union in the first place.  I see, though, that that wasn't moda's question.

LoneWolf is right about compulsory bargaining.

From the NLRB website:

What rules govern collective bargaining for a contract?

After employees choose a union as a bargaining representative, the employer and union are required to meet at reasonable times to bargain in good faith about wages, hours, vacation time, insurance, safety practices and other mandatory subjects. Some managerial decisions such as subcontracting, relocation, and other operational changes may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining, but the employer must bargain about the decision's effects on unit employees.

It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.

If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain.

The parties' obligations do not end when the contract expires. They must bargain in good faith for a successor contract, or for the termination of the agreement, while terms of the expired contract continue.

[MediumTex]

Here is a little more background for the discussion we are having:

The issue that always arises when talking about compulsory collective bargaining is also compulsory union membership in the first place.  They are in many ways two sides of the same coin.

A "closed shop" is a shop in which persons are required to join a particular union as a precondition to employment and to remain union members for the duration of their employment.

The federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq.) protects the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively and prohibits management from engaging in unfair labor practices that would interfere with these rights. Popularly known as the Wagner Act, the NLRA was signed into law by President franklin d. roosevelt on July 5, 1935.

Among the workers' rights legalized by the NLRA was the right to enter into a "closed shop" agreement. It differs from a union shop, in which all workers, once employed, must become union members within a specified period of time as a condition of their continued employment. Closed shop agreements ensured that only union members who were bound by internal union rules, including those enforcing worker solidarity during strikes, were hired.

As World War II ended a decade after the NLRA was enacted, unions sought to make up the pay cuts caused by wage freezes during the war, resulting in a rash of strikes. Many people viewed these strikes as economically destructive, and union practices, such as closed shop agreements, became increasingly unpopular. Critics of the closed shop contended that it allowed unions to monopolize employment by limiting membership or closing it altogether. They also argued that the closed shop allowed unions to force unwilling individuals to give them financial support.

In response to these criticisms, Congress amended the NLRA in 1947, with the adoption of the labor-management-relations act (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq.). Known as the Taft-Hartley Act, this law placed many restrictions on union activities. It limited picketing rights, banned supervisory employees from participating in unions, and restricted the right to strike in situations where the president of the United States and Congress determined that a strike would endanger national health and safety. The Taft-Hartley Act prohibited secondary boycotts, wherein a union incites a strike by employees of a neutral or "secondary" party, such as a retailer, in order to force the secondary party to cease doing business with the party with whom the union has its primary dispute, such as a manufacturer. The Taft-Hartley Act also allowed individual states to ban the union shop by passing Right-to-Work Laws that prohibited employees from being required to join a union as a condition of receiving or retaining a job.

Section 8(a)(3) of the Taft-Hartley Act specifically outlawed the closed shop but did allow a collectively bargained agreement for a union shop, provided certain safeguards were met. Under the union shop proviso, a union and an employer could agree that employees must join the union within thirty days of employment in order to retain their jobs. Section 8(a)(3) stated, in relevant part,

    "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—… (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, that nothing in this subchapter, or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization …to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement … if such labor organization is the representative of the employees…. Provided further, that no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for nonmembership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership."

Some observers believe that the Abolition of the closed shop helped to minimize racial discrimination by unions. The Wagner Act allowed unions to effectively shut out black employees from employment opportunities and benefits by simply refusing them membership. The Taft-Hartley Act curtailed this practice by prohibiting the negotiation of security agreements that limited employment opportunities to union members.