Labor Unions 101
In the 1950's I learned about labor unions and politics. My mother was a cook who became active in her union and was elected to serve on its executive board. Mom told me about some of the cases that came before the board involving employers abusing their employees and how the union stood up for the worker. In that heyday of American unionism, with a Republican President and Congress who were trying to undermine the New Deal union protections, labor unions began to get seriously involved in political action to defend the protections, and Mom took an office job with a union political action committee. She brought home lots of interesting materials about the history of unions and about the American political process, and since they were written for workers to understand, I found them very readable.
Unions were considered as subversive up through the First World War and as unimportant during the Roaring Twenties. American workers languished in unemployed poverty during the Great Depression as a result of the collapse of the economy brought about by unregulated capitalist greed. The New Deal of FDR brought needed economic regulation and worker protections, but it was WWII that finally brought full employment.
After the wage and price controls of the second War were lifted, the worker protections of the New Deal enabled workers to organize unions and collectively bargain with employers for a contract specifying wages, hours and working conditions. American industrial dominance had produced a large profit pie, and the employment contract determined what portion would go to the workers who produced it and what portion would go to the capitalists who financed it. The labor laws governing the process served to keep the bargaining fair and to encourage ultimate agreement through a free market process of negotiation. The 1950s were a time of great prosperity in America, with productive and fairly compensated unionized workers providing the bulk of the labor. [That some unions practiced racial and ethnic discrimination during those years is a sad fact and is not excused by the existence of such discrimination in other areas of American society].
Enlightened employers know that a happy and stable workforce is beneficial to the success of a business. Such employers recognize the helpful role unions play in producing such a workforce. But some employers, individually and through business groups, refuse to recognize the value of unions and have through the years tried to get changes in the laws in order to undermine the collective bargaining policy of our country and to hinder legitimate union activity. These people also oppose all laws designed to improve wages, hours and working conditions of workers, whether unionized or not. They fought against pension vesting regulation, workplace safety and family medical leave. They always oppose any increase in the minimum wage law. They recently succeeded in getting the Bush administration to change the overtime pay regulations to the detriment of most workers.
In the early 1970s, I worked for a title insurance company which Safeco Insurance had acquired. Safeco is a classically unenlightened employer. The title company had good workers and an enterprising culture which was resulting in a growing profit pie, but it was not being fairly shared with the workers. We started a campaign to form a union and to get a fair contract. Safeco fought it tooth and nail and was found to have violated several worker protection laws. The workers finally formed a union but they never did get Safeco to agree to a contract. However, as a result of the labor law violations being brought to light, and probably as an inducement to undermine the union effort, Safeco did improve the pay structure. However, the pro-union employees drifted off to other vistas, replaced by carefully screened anti-union types, business shriveled and in a few years Safeco bailed out of the title insurance business.
The union organizer we first worked with on the Safeco campaign told me that unions are interested in improving the lot of all workers, whether or not they become unionized. Unionism is one of those causes that wishes it did not have to exist - that all employees would be treated fairly without the need for unions. Advisors to employers tell them if they have a union organizing drive on their hands they have done something wrong in the way they treat their employees and they better make some improvements.
The workforce of the 1950s included people with memories of no jobs during the Depression and then of working hard during the War. They understood the value of having their unions represent them. They believed in and practiced the mottto "a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage". The success of the Democratic party in 1960s politics meant unions were safe from attacks by unenlightened employer groups. But a combination of Republican political resurgence and influx of young workers without knowledge of the background of labor relations in American history, started an erosion of support for unions in the 1970s. The Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s were openly anti-union. Reagan supposedly showed his "balls" by firing the air traffic controllers for going on strike, ignoring the fact their strike was primarily over concerns that the skies were not safe for passengers. The real "balls" were shown by Lech Walesa and the polish solidarity union movement standing up to the communist government - those are the people who deserve credit for the collapse of communism, not Ronald Reagan.
The Clinton administration of the 1990s was to me almost a moderate Republican government. Clinton started by signing the family leave law which the first Bush had vetoed, but then nothing much seems to have been done after that to benefit workers or their unions. The WTO and Workfare are more favorable to Wal-Mart than to workers. Wal-Mart is the prime current example of an unenlightened employer, one who believe a worker should be happy just to have a job, regardless of the low pay, long hours and poor working conditions. Smiley face logos and company cheers should be enough to bring joy. Wal-Mart believes a stable workforce is bad for business, because long time workers are more likely to expect improvements in wages, hours and working conditions, and are more likely to form workplace friendships that could lead to worker discussions of collective bargaining rights.
Union membership is now largely concentrated among government workers, where the profit pie analysis doesn’t really work. I would prefer to have seen unions continue to be a force in the private sector and then to have government worker contracts modeled after comparable private sector union contracts. There does not seem to be much prospect now for unions to make gains in organizing more workers. Maybe it will take another Depression to develop a new generation of union workers.
Unions were considered as subversive up through the First World War and as unimportant during the Roaring Twenties. American workers languished in unemployed poverty during the Great Depression as a result of the collapse of the economy brought about by unregulated capitalist greed. The New Deal of FDR brought needed economic regulation and worker protections, but it was WWII that finally brought full employment.
After the wage and price controls of the second War were lifted, the worker protections of the New Deal enabled workers to organize unions and collectively bargain with employers for a contract specifying wages, hours and working conditions. American industrial dominance had produced a large profit pie, and the employment contract determined what portion would go to the workers who produced it and what portion would go to the capitalists who financed it. The labor laws governing the process served to keep the bargaining fair and to encourage ultimate agreement through a free market process of negotiation. The 1950s were a time of great prosperity in America, with productive and fairly compensated unionized workers providing the bulk of the labor. [That some unions practiced racial and ethnic discrimination during those years is a sad fact and is not excused by the existence of such discrimination in other areas of American society].
Enlightened employers know that a happy and stable workforce is beneficial to the success of a business. Such employers recognize the helpful role unions play in producing such a workforce. But some employers, individually and through business groups, refuse to recognize the value of unions and have through the years tried to get changes in the laws in order to undermine the collective bargaining policy of our country and to hinder legitimate union activity. These people also oppose all laws designed to improve wages, hours and working conditions of workers, whether unionized or not. They fought against pension vesting regulation, workplace safety and family medical leave. They always oppose any increase in the minimum wage law. They recently succeeded in getting the Bush administration to change the overtime pay regulations to the detriment of most workers.
In the early 1970s, I worked for a title insurance company which Safeco Insurance had acquired. Safeco is a classically unenlightened employer. The title company had good workers and an enterprising culture which was resulting in a growing profit pie, but it was not being fairly shared with the workers. We started a campaign to form a union and to get a fair contract. Safeco fought it tooth and nail and was found to have violated several worker protection laws. The workers finally formed a union but they never did get Safeco to agree to a contract. However, as a result of the labor law violations being brought to light, and probably as an inducement to undermine the union effort, Safeco did improve the pay structure. However, the pro-union employees drifted off to other vistas, replaced by carefully screened anti-union types, business shriveled and in a few years Safeco bailed out of the title insurance business.
The union organizer we first worked with on the Safeco campaign told me that unions are interested in improving the lot of all workers, whether or not they become unionized. Unionism is one of those causes that wishes it did not have to exist - that all employees would be treated fairly without the need for unions. Advisors to employers tell them if they have a union organizing drive on their hands they have done something wrong in the way they treat their employees and they better make some improvements.
The workforce of the 1950s included people with memories of no jobs during the Depression and then of working hard during the War. They understood the value of having their unions represent them. They believed in and practiced the mottto "a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage". The success of the Democratic party in 1960s politics meant unions were safe from attacks by unenlightened employer groups. But a combination of Republican political resurgence and influx of young workers without knowledge of the background of labor relations in American history, started an erosion of support for unions in the 1970s. The Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s were openly anti-union. Reagan supposedly showed his "balls" by firing the air traffic controllers for going on strike, ignoring the fact their strike was primarily over concerns that the skies were not safe for passengers. The real "balls" were shown by Lech Walesa and the polish solidarity union movement standing up to the communist government - those are the people who deserve credit for the collapse of communism, not Ronald Reagan.
The Clinton administration of the 1990s was to me almost a moderate Republican government. Clinton started by signing the family leave law which the first Bush had vetoed, but then nothing much seems to have been done after that to benefit workers or their unions. The WTO and Workfare are more favorable to Wal-Mart than to workers. Wal-Mart is the prime current example of an unenlightened employer, one who believe a worker should be happy just to have a job, regardless of the low pay, long hours and poor working conditions. Smiley face logos and company cheers should be enough to bring joy. Wal-Mart believes a stable workforce is bad for business, because long time workers are more likely to expect improvements in wages, hours and working conditions, and are more likely to form workplace friendships that could lead to worker discussions of collective bargaining rights.
Union membership is now largely concentrated among government workers, where the profit pie analysis doesn’t really work. I would prefer to have seen unions continue to be a force in the private sector and then to have government worker contracts modeled after comparable private sector union contracts. There does not seem to be much prospect now for unions to make gains in organizing more workers. Maybe it will take another Depression to develop a new generation of union workers.
posted by Tom Blake | 1:12 PM
6 Comments:
Union organizing efforts have been achieving some success among Wal-Mart employees at some stores in Canada, with one store's employees having achieved union bargaining certification. But it looks like Wal-Mart may be using the Safeco approach of not bargaining in good faith and preferring to close the store rather than agree to a union contract. Wal-Mart claims the store is losing money, but I would not put it past Wal-Mart to have purposely let the store lose money in order to intimidate the workers. An unfair labor practice charge has been brought by the union.
Here is an article on the Canadian Wal-Mart case
Let me first start by saying I was a union member for several years (IATSE #470 -- stagehands) and was well served by my local.
However, I've in over 30 cities, and dealt with somewhere in the range of 30 different locals during my time as a stagehand. Those unions included IASTE, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Teamsters, and others. The cities I've worked in New York City, Toronto, Chicago, Denver, DC, and Cleveland. Unions are not, in an of themselves, a good thing.
Many of the locals I worked with were more interested in money than in fair balance. They go on about how they're "protecting their union brothers" when, in fact, they were making my job (and I was a "union brother") exceedingly more difficult.
In one city, it took 4 separate crews to move a box 100 yards. If a worker had to reach through a doorway to get a handle on a box, he wouldn't; "I only push the boxes inside the door."
In another city, a worker showed up drunk and unable to perform his duties. He was reported by me, but was not replaced. 4 days out of 6 he was too drunk to work (including for a Saturday morning show). But the union protected him. Luckily for me, he was only a spot-light operator, not a rigger.
Another venue leveed a $10,000 fine for setting foot on the stage during lunch hour--for any reason. I couldn't get my book from my work bag, so I could relax during my lunch. This 'protects' me how?
I've dealt with unions where a carpenter can't plug in his own battery charger--an electrician (2-man, 4-hour minimum) must be called to plug it in for him. An electrician can't move his own step-ladder 3 feet. He has to wait for the properties crew to come over and move it for him.
A supervisor of mine worked in a space where anytime a worker stepped foot in a performace space during the course of a day, a 4-hour minumum went into effect for that space. There were 4 performace spaces in that theatre. A worker walking from one end to the other would get a 4-hour minumum in each space. 16 hours of paid time for walking a couple hundred yards across a building.
In the place I work now, a manager is not allowed to help a union member. They have to stand by the side and watch the worker struggle to get their job done. And complaints have been filed when a manager is caught lending a hand. I'm not talking about replacing jobs, I'm talking about stepping in for 15 minutes during a crunch to help someone out. How does this benefit the worker or the company?
Unions, per se, are neither good nor bad. They are a tool to acheive a goal. The ones in charge of that tool determine how it is used. Unions are rife with politics; politics that makes Washington look like a quilting bee. A lot of people see the union as a way to gain power and "stick it to" the management. They promote an "Us vs. Them" mentality, instead of working to make sure that the company works as a whole unit.
Rather than supporting unions, I support fair and safe work conditions for workers. If the tool to do that is a union, that's fine. If the tool to do that is calling in OSHA or US Dept of Labor, that's fine, too. And if the way to do that is to just sit down with the management and talk about what needs to be done, without negotiations and formalities, then that's good, too.
---
M Blaze Miskulin
(www.dragonflydreams.org)
You point out some of the practical problems that arise in the implementation of unionism: jurisdictional disputes, grievance filings, and union politics. As your comment indicates, these are all matters that involve determining what is fair - in line with the adage I quoted about fair day's work and fair day's wage. Since I did not mention these details in my posting, I will offer a brief comment on each here.
When a workplace requires workers with different skill sets, contracts need to make clear what work will be done by what skill set of workers. The more skilled workers are usually paid more and are understandably concerned that the employer might try to have their work done by lesser skilled workers for lower pay. The lower skilled workers are understandably concerned that the more skilled workers might seek to have some lower skilled work classified as higher skilled to make more work for themselves. The resulting contracts between the employer and the two groups of workers set out what they agree about who should do what work. To the extent some of the agreed rules seem impractical, the two employee groups and the employer are all responsible, and are free to negotiate for more practical rules in the next contract. Rules which include some apparent impracticalities are preferable to no rules at all, which can lead to chaotic disputes, saftey and quality issues and exploitation of workers - the very problems which the unions arose to address.
Initial determination of worker misconduct or incompetence properly rests with the employer. One responsibility of the union is to investigate worker complaints of unfair treatment by the employer, and there are usually policies agreed to by the employer and union as to how to handle such cases. Contracts often provide for required warnings to accused employess with opportunities for counselling and other options to work toward reforming a problem employee. The process works only as well as the people implementing it. A union which does not eventually recognize that an incorrigibly truant employee should be dismissed is as much in error as an employer who fires an employee for the first minor transgression.
Unions are required by law to be democratically administered and are highly regulated to that end by the government. Politics comes with democracy and unions are no exception. Voter apathy and some candidate demagoguery can be involved in union elections, but tight regulations keep them especially clean.
Laws such as OSHA protect workers regardless of whether or not they are unionized. However, unions have been the primary catalyst for all worker protection laws. The goal is to achieve fairness between workers and employers, but with a few exceptions in the case of usually small and unusually enlightened employers, history has shown fairness cannot be accomplished without the collective bargaining power of unions. Unions are a necessary part of a free market economy if workers are to be treated fairly.
My sentiments go with Blaze. Although my first father-in-law was a union official, and my college age beliefs were pro-union, we need to reconsider the role of unions. First let me state that I've lived in Arizona, a right-to-work state, for many years (how many of your readers even know what that means Tom?). I don't think that affects how I feel. My father-in-law died an early death, and I think it was partly because he was so disillusioned by what the labor movement had become. At the end, he spent too much of his time defending worker disputes that he did not personally believe in, but he did it anyway because that was his job. He had a very strong work ethic, but he had to defend those who had slovenly work ethics. Still, unions could have a place today if they attacked the right issues. Examples of the right issues are the exportation of jobs to Mexico, Singapore, etc., gender discrimination in pay, the expansion of the work week for low paid white collar workers, the obscene salaries and benefits of executives. Instead, they seem to be still centrating on meaningless details of what a high skilled versus a medium skilled worker is allowed to do. I've been a manager for many years, and I've learned this: People need autonomy at their jobs. They don't want their bosses putting up artificial barriers. If the worker sees a problem, knows how to fix it, and fixes it, everybody wins. The worker feels he has done something wothwhile, and the boss is relieved that he or she doesn't have to get involved.
John from Phoenix
I am really glad that you both took the time to read and share on this topic of unions, Blaze and John. This is a very important dialogue that is missing from the American political and news scene. You see scads of magazine articles about American companies but they are overwhelmingly discussing matters relating to how the enterprise is doing in the economy and how it is as an investment for stockholders. TV programs about business take the same approach, particularly on the cable financial channels. I watch a fair amount of talking head shows and have seen lots of corporate executives as pundits and subjects of interviews, but cannot recall seeing a union representative on a panel or as an interviewee in recent memory.
Workers in America are treated as just another economic indicator, unemployment rates, job losses, new jobs created. Sure, once in a while there are a few sound bites of some long time worker who lost a job to outsourcing , but never anything in depth about workplace issues like we are discussing here. The American worker, unionized or not, is being taken for granted at best and is being cast aside at worst. Unions speak for the workers and they are not doing a good job of it, due in large part to the media becoming ever more concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite whose policy it is to purposely discount workers. The non-commercial media, PBS and NPR are the only places to get worthwhile stories from the point of view of American workers.
Now in response to your comments, John, let me start with a little more history. I am sure you are correct that young readers do not know what so-called "Right to Work" laws are. Workers agreeing to collective bargaining is a democratic process - the workers decide by a majority vote to have a union negotiate and bargain for a contract with the employer. By their unified approach, the workers are able to deal on an equal basis with the employer, rather than have the employer play one or more workers off against the others. One of the issues for contract negotiation is how to balance the interest of the employer in being able to hire whatever employees it wants, with the interest of the union in preventing the employer from hiring anti-union employees in order to have them vote the union out as bargaining agent.
In the contract, the employer might like an "open shop", meaning the employer can hire whomever they want and that person is free to decide whether or not to join the union. Unions always oppose such a provision because it easily enables an employer to hire people opposed to the union and who are willing to decertify the union as a bargaining agent. Unions are required by law to bargain on behalf of all employees, whether or not they are union members, so non-union workers in an open shop would be getting the benefits of union negotiation without having to pay dues to support the union. The union might prefer a "closed shop", meaning an employer can only hire someone who is already a membr of the union. In some industries, employers actually like closed shops, because the union then operates as sort of a free employment agency. However, many employers understandably feel a closed shop is too restrictive. Most contracts agree on a middle ground, the "union shop", where the employer is free to hire whomever he wants, but the new employee has to join the union, usually within 30 days. Union workers have democratic rights to vote their officers out if they do not like the job they are doing, and they also have a right to vote to dertify the union if they want.
So-called Right to Work laws are one of the earlier examples of "framing" the name of a law in a way that sounds generally laudable, instead of more accurately naming the law for its actual narrow purpose. These laws traditionally are designed to prohibit any contract between an employer and union from being anything other than an "open shop", regardless of what the employer, union and employees want. The union is required by law to represent all employees in bargaining, grievances and every other way, without the right to collect any dues from any employee unless the employee volunteers to pay. These laws should really be called "open shop" laws, or more correctly, "right to union representation without union dues" laws. In States with these laws, unions are emasculated.
Regarding the "right issues"" John says unions should be addressing, here are some comments. Outsourcing jobs overseas ultimately would be stoppped if workers overseas were unionized. Union jobs from northern states were outsourced to the non-union southern states and then after those states started to unionize, the jobs started going overseas. If workers worldwide were paid fairly, outsourcing would not be a significant problem.
Gender based pay discrimination is prohibited by law. Unions have been leaders in assisting with such claims. During the union organizing drive at Safeco Title, some of the women employees complained to the EEOC and investigation showed blatant sex dicrimination. The employer then gave all the women raises. The solidarity of the pro-union workers, with the encouragement of the union, made it easier for the women to complain. If they had to do it as individuals, wihout any union involvement, they would have been more easily intimidated. Unfortunately, some of the women at Safeco Title apparently thought the raise they got came out of the goodness of the employer's heart, rather than as a result of EEOC findings of discrimination.
As to the work week, I would like to see unions work toward reducing the typical work week from 40 hours, where it has been for decades, to 32 hours. But for the last several years unions have had their hands full just trying to hold the ground for workers against efforts by employers to cut back on health benefits, pension contributions and cost of living increases. Until unions again become more common in our economy, prospects for shorter work weeks seem dim.
Obscene executive salaries and benefits are a tragedy. The disparity between what the executives get and what the workers get has escalated geometrically over the time union power has diminshed. Unions have no direct say regarding what executives earn, because they are not covered by union contracts. The board of directors is where this remedy lies. When unions had more power, it was not uncommon to see a pro-labor director on a corporate board, but in this day they are practically non-existent, and we have a pro-employer woman masquerading as Secretary of Labor. What have you ever heard Elaine Chao say that was applauded by workers?
I spoke some in reply to Blaze about unions representing slovenly employees in grievances. Let me add here that in a "Right to Work" State, such a lousy employee might very well be a non-dues paying flake who is threatening the union with legal action if they fail to represent him. Where employers are openly anti-union and where the law is stacked in their favor, I would not put it past them to hire a crumb-bumb on purpose to saddle the union with having to represent the dud, in order to further undermine union credibility.
I remeber your father-in-law, John. As a member of the "greatest generation", the work he did on behalf of unions was so worthwhile. I am sorry for the discouragement he experienced and wonder if it was a result of something like a "Right to Work" law. My Italian immmigrant grandfather was President of his union at Armour's and was proud of the fact that no grievance dutring his time ever went beyond him and the head man for the company. They each investigated all complaints and trusted each other's integrity. They usually agreed on the proper action, but when they had an honest difference of opinion, they would reach a compromise. If a supervisor was in the wrong, the big boss straightened him out and if the worker was in the wrong, my grandfgather showed him the error of his ways.
John, I forgot to agree with you on the value of worker autonomy. In the "Nickel and Dimed" book I mentioned in another post, the author pointed out how often the workers would be able to work better when there was less supervisory involvement. Particularly at Wal Mart, a chief purpose for supervisors seems to be to insure the workers feel devalued enough so that they are happy just to have the job and believe they could not do any better than what they are getting from Wal Mart.
An enlightened employer might legitimately use a merit pay system to recognize and increase the pay of a good worker. But many employers use the merit pay system to tear employees down. They grudgingly agree to a periodic performance review, and then use the "glass is half empty" performance analysis to make the employee feel ashamed of asking for a raise and grateful just to be able to keep the job.
As to incompetent employees being retained, unions are definitely not the reason such people are on the job in non-union shops, and we all know there are plenty duds working for non-union employers. Favoritism and office politics are the culprits. Unions cannot prevent the boss from hiring his lazy son, but they may be able to provide some relief for a worker unfairly passed over for promotion. Like office politics, there may also be some union politics, but at least in the union variety the worker has a vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home