oldslabsides wrote:  The money that was expected to be realized through investments in the market failed to materialize, yet GM is contractually obligated to it's workers. For the moment, anyway.

 cc_rider wrote: 

 arighter2 wrote: 
if theirs is any indication, I'd say it's not much of an argument.

 oldslabsides wrote:  Arguably, GM got screwed because of the under performance of their pension funds.

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
I absolutely believe that is true. 'Management' in the larger sense has no one to blame but themselves for the rise of unions. Conversely, unions have no one to blame but themselves for becoming scapegoats for management ire. It's a dysfunctional relationship, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

 arighter2 wrote: 
My ex-inlaws both worked at the GM plant that used to be in this town.  They were both proud union members.  They were both paid an outrageous wage for menial tasks.  They also received terrific benefits and now live on retirements that afford them a very comfortable old age.  I don't begrudge them any of that, but the fact remains that a company cannot pay people upwards of $70 per hour in wages and benefits - plus a retirement fit for a king - to put in a screw or two or connect a wiring harness.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
60k? Now you're just being absurd. Pretty sure most Wal-Mart workers make less than 17k annually, gross.

 arighter2 wrote:

No, I don't exonerate management. As William Coors famously said, "Unions are a result of poor management."

No, we can't afford to subsidize people. We also can't afford to pay store clerks $60K a year. Their work isn't worth that, and demanding higher and higher wages for the same work is a recipe for non-competitiveness.

 arighter2 wrote: 
It's always the fault of labor - Fox News, Neal Boortz, and Rush Limbaugh told me so.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
So you assume the drop off in Detroit quality is union inefficiency, exonerating management? The drop in education is alarming, to be sure, but how much of that is teacher inefficiency, and how much a factor of the extant culture? Bear in mind, the best students abroad still flock here for post secondary work.

A stereotype may have an element of truth and remain misleading.

You are right that unionization is a disadvantage in the modern system, but given unsustainable systemic performance, are you sure the flaw is in the unions, and not inherent to the system?  Unions would be superfluous if management paid a living wage. Can we really afford subsidizing labor to the tune of 5k EIC per Wal-martish worker?

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Serious question - is there no professional standards body for teachers over there? We have a set up similar to the General Medical Council for doctors, now 'independent', formerly part of the Dept. of Education, and Ofsted for the schools (their inspections identify weak teachers so they can be offered support, or in the worst cases, re-training).

 islander wrote: 
Which is what bothers me so much when striking workers talk smack about their own company. In the medical setting, it was unfortunately common to see striking nurses carry pickets saying "the care here sucks" and then demand higher wages. It made no sense.

 arighter2 wrote:
Like the legendary quality of the American auto industry. The stellar performance of American schools.

Stereotypes exist because they have an element of truth to them. I've worked in both as well; when the work is exactly the same every day and the technology never changes and the skill required is minimal...sure, whatever. In the real world a union shop can't keep up—rigid work rules, inflexible policies and structural hostility to change of any kind leaves them stuck at the last contract while competitors keep moving.

We've been talking about teacher's unions, and if you want to defend the status quo keep in mind that that includes defending this.

Go ahead. Tell us how great this is for students, for school systems, and how well it motivates a good teacher to stay and a bad teacher to find something else to do.

Yes, it's an extreme case—but that's a matter of degree, not of kind.

 arighter2 wrote: 
It depends a lot on how you look at things. I don't believe there is an inherent managment vs. labor rift. I think if you are above average, your salary will reflect that. Security may be higher within a union, but it is an artificial construct that inherently weekens the company in the market. If the company fails, so does your security (unless you have political benefactors to prop you up, but generally..). My employees work hard for their own rewards, and by doing so they strengthen the company (in which they have an ownership stake as well as an employment opportunity), and therefor their own security.  They take pride in their work because they are professionals, pay and security flow from that, not the other way around.

 black321 wrote: 
As I said elsewhere, there are offsetting factors. Can the same be said for bank executives? The difference is in the nature of the incentive.

 arighter2 wrote:  thats always true.  But I think unions and libertarians ignore some basic human qualities that are not beneficial: sloth and greed, respectively. 

 islander wrote:
 
The whole thing is frustrating, because unions and management typically have an adversarial relationship, which does not serve anyone's interests. In some ways unions provide another layer of management, which is not automatically a bad thing. Hear me out. What if management could go to the union and say "we need two welders: one master welder and one apprentice." The union goes through its rolls and checks to see who is qualified (i.e. up to union standards) and available. Which is exactly what a manager would do, right? Conversely, let's say a company folds, for whatever reason. The union could provide employment resources, like those rolls mentioned earlier.

I believe it is possible for unions and management to work TOGETHER, rather than always at each other's throats. In many cases, both management and the union are not set up for that sort of cooperation though: it's all about getting concessions from the other side. But it's like so many other aspects of this big blue ball: there are no sides, there is really only US.

 islander wrote: 
That's true, and I have seen that, but based on my observation such people are a minority, and the slack is more than made up by others. In general, people will work harder if they feel the work is valued. Salary and security play a role in that.

 arighter2 wrote: 

I guess it depends on the individual...but there's more moral hazard risk associated with unions.

 arighter2 wrote: 
It's also easier to slack off when it's difficult and complicated to be disciplined and you will get the same pay and bonuses regardless.