fpb | So trades unionism is on the way out, is it?

So trades unionism is on the way out, is it?

Allow me a little expression of hatred. Of all the categories of brute in the world, I hold a special loathing for union-busters. Given two bullets and the choice of an abortionist, Robert Mugabe, or a union-buster, I would shoot the union-buster, twice, to make sure. The monstrous intellectual perversion that pretends that employees should negotiate alone by themselves with employers who hold the power of whole cities, whole nations, and calls this defending freedom, is something that is very far beyond my ability to imagine, let alone to sympathize with.

The article I include is by a union-buster. And proud of it, the bastard. A former American senator with the ridiculous name of Malcolm Wallop (one might say that God sometimes gets his retribution in in advance - why is it that so many unpleasant people have ridiculous names, John Spong, Kevin Naff, Malcolm Wallop?). So I recommend that you read the following article as you would a note from your worst enemy, with the due interpretative attitude.

Lost in the summer news shuffle of judicial nominations and social
security reform spins a fascinating story with tremendous long-term
significance. It is the deepening rift between the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) and the 800-pound American Federation of
Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

Union strife is nothing new; followers of union politics know that
membership is in decline. In fact, I admittedly watched with
satisfaction as their numbers first began slipping during my three
terms as a United States Senator from 1976-1994 representing the
nearly union-free state of Wyoming.

Now moving into the new century many of my free-market, free-trade
colleagues and I relish in the continued decline. There is, however,
one notable exception in the increasingly powerful SEIU. Now the
nation’s largest union, SEIU bucks the trend by engaging in slick,
heavy-handed intimidation campaigns and by targeting less-skilled,
low-wage workers.

SEIU’s tactics are reminiscent of other corporate pressure campaigns
waged by groups from Greenpeace to the Rainforest Action Network to
EarthFirst. Their warfare modus operandi primarily consists of
bullhorns and banners. A successful day at the office is judged by
how much traffic is stopped and how many news cameras filmed the
well-orchestrated circus.

Now comes word that the progressively bold SEIU has authorized its
national leadership to abandon the AFL-CIO and form what they dub an
“aggressively pro-growth coalition.” This divorce could result in a
seismic shift of union power unlike anything seen for decades.

To be certain, SEIU is already considered among the more brazen of
the active unions. But some worry that a contentious split from the
AFL-CIO will embolden the former to ramp up even further their
intimidation tactics against corporate America. Considering their
history, these concerns are certainly warranted.

Chief among their targets has always been Wal-Mart, one of history’s
most successful companies. To the painful chagrin of SEIU,
Wal-Mart’s own workforce has repeatedly voted down unionization.
That’s no matter to this union-on-the-rise; bullies never quit.

Proving that SEIU’s leadership isn’t afraid to eat their own, they
recently attacked the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) by accusing
them of cozying up to Wal-Mart. In a letter sent to each CBC member,
SEIU chastised their efforts to partner with the company such issues
as encouraging the White House to extend the Voting Rights Act of
1965.

Perhaps someone can persuade the union to turn down their rhetoric
just enough to hear the facts. The CBC and Wal-Mart have a very
natural alliance; the retail giant is one of the largest employers
of African Americans and has become a significant supporter of the
CBC Foundation.

True to their mission SEIU has grown into an equal opportunity
attack machine. Not to be forgotten in the shadows of their
anti-Wal-Mart campaign are equally impressive battles against such
recognizable heavyweights as financial stalwart Charles Schwab,
health care companies Advocate and Kaiser Permanente, and global
security firm Wackenhut.

But with SEIU, size doesn’t matter. Their public-relations machine
also runs smear-campaigns against smaller, less recognizable
companies. Most recently the native-Alaskan company Alutiiq Security
and Technology found itself in the crosshairs. Presumably the real
target is once again Wackenhut, but by trying to break legs at
Alutiiq, a Wackenhut contractor, SEIU hopes the latter will cave to
their long-held demands to unionize.

As is the case with their CBC dispute, SEIU appears willing to fire
on their own constituency in pursuit of their big-picture,
idealistic agenda. Shooting at Alutiiq over its status as a federal
contractor only hurts the working-class SEIU has sworn to defend. A
damaged reputation and subsequent loss of clients will mean lost
jobs and lost opportunities for Alaskan students. Like many regional
companies, Alutiiq offer scholarships and contribute sizeable funds
to an array of local initiatives.

Surely SEIU comprehends that Alutiiq has no more control over
Wackenhut’s labor policies than the Wall Street Journal has over the
caterer at the company’s summer barbeque. But if you’re SEIU, the
truth is just a casualty of war.

In America we laud and honor those with a healthy dose of ambition.
But possessing the brand of blind ambition of SEIU could prove
anything but healthy for America’s most innovative and successful
employers.

The brute, clearly, is running scared.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am wary of unions, since living in Michigan when I read of the continuous problems arising from the automotive industry's unionized labor. My dad believes that the necessity of most unions is a thing of the past, though I wouldn't call him a union-buster, partially because he doesn't actively try to destroy unions. However, he has revealed that unions are very much a double-edged sword, though more negative than positive.

I particularly find the Teacher's Union a nightmare for the American public school system.

Unions can be destructive. But in my view, an industry where the unions have got out of hand - I have seen this happen in Britain - is an industry where management is feeble and incompetent and uses the unions as an excuse for its own incompetence. (Does this describe the American school system, do you think?) Strong management deals with unions honestly and fairly, and, if it has to, risks strikes, but does not feel the need either to treat employees like cattle or to bow down to their every demand. Association and cooperation are the only defence the average employee has against large employers. Anyone who tries to deny it on principle, and pretend that there is anything "free" about an atomized employee having to deal with the likes of Wal-Mart on his or her miserable lonesome, is an enemy of freedom - except for the mighty and the rich. Incidentally, union-busting on "principle" is against Church teaching - have a look at Pope Leo XIII's encyclical RERUM NOVARUM and Pius XI's QUADRAGESIMO ANNO.

I agree with all that you have said.

Also, the American teacher's unions are partially the cause for our poor public education system, especially the NEA. First, the NEA cares more about how much the school spends (the more they spend, the better the school, in their opinion), than the actual results of the students. They actually believe that simply throwing money at failing schools will improve the school's performance. Basically, they protect bad teachers and fail to reward good teachers. With that sort of idiocy, good teachers work for private schools, unless they are truly good and brave and stick with public schools.

Yes. In the matter of high performance, the interests of the union are against both those of the employer and of the customer/service user. Their job is to defend the employee, and it is at the very least difficult for them to accept that there is a difference between high-performing and useless employees. Back in the bad days of union overreach in Britain, the sacking of any slacker could provoke an immediate wildcat strike; the effects of this sort of thing on general performance and morale is easy to imagine. Therefore employers should insist on work contracts including clear performance goals and the power to sanction bad performance, up to and including the sack.

I have a suspicion that the American education system may have another problem. I am not too clear about it, but is it not the case that it is a federal system? And in that case, having something so enormous, is it even possible to manage it at all?

Education, much like marriage law, is under the jurisdiction of the states. However, there are large variances by district (a state is divided into any number of school districts for adminstration) because there's a lot of possible variation in how schools are funded. One common way of funding is through a percentage of the property tax, which means schools in wealthy areas can get much more money easily than the poorer areas, and especially the rural ones. There are also options such as trying to pass a bond issue, which is always tough in areas with a lot of retirees as they tend to fight powerfully against them (I saw one fail 4 times before passing, for much needed new buildings). There are, however, almost no absolute universals in speaking of 'the American education system'.

Thanks for the information, it makes everything clearer - as much as it can be.

I have to comment here.

I'm a member of the NEA, and we don't care what the schools spend, as long as the kids get what they need. In fact, we've debated refusing to take federal monies to pay for public education because in doing so we must adhere to the NCLB act (No Child Left Behind). Most in the union think that this act is not worth the paper it's printed on and want to get rid of it. In Utah, their union refused the money and decided to work with the kids the way they knew how.

When government bureaucracy interferes with the education of students, especially those officials who haven't been in a public school their whole lives, it hurts.

Also, as much as you'd like not to believe it, money does help those failing schools. Public schools have to take all kids, be they mentally retarded, cerebral palsy, autistic, whatever. Private schools aren't obliged to do the same. They can take only the best and brightest if they want. That's why you see their scores so much higher. They don't have special needs kids breaking the curve. And yes, ALL those kids must take the test. Because of NCLB, EVERY score, no matter how low and no matter how dumb the kid was (for not taking the test seriously), public schools must deal with the consequences.

I work in a public school as a band teacher. The last time we got a new drum was in 1971; the last tuba in 1985. Most of my kids can't afford instruments, but they can't play in the band due to budget cuts. We have only five working computers in the whole district. The unions want to see a fairer spread of that cash, because as it stands right now, schools get so much money per kid and get penalized for stupid shit, like how far the busses have to go to get the kids and whether or not the kid qualifies for the school lunch program. Believe it.

Private schools will never have a funding problem because they can always raise tuition when they need to, thereby catering to more and more elite kids with benefits that the poorer students don't get, thereby making the gap between the haves and the have nots that much worse.

That is all very well. You present NEA as flawless. Perhaps you perceive it that way. And certainly the violent and repeated assaults on it by conservative commentators leave a nasty taste in the mouth. But I have found myself having to correct the knowledge of history - and I do not mean subtle interpretation and advanced research, but simple, obvious, long-established fact that should not be controversial at all - of highly intelligent American teen-agers who, through no fault of their own, had had their skulls simply stuffed with PC lies. And I mean lies. Teaching history does not demand expensive computers or instruments; it is done out of ordinary books with a few maps. If the kids come out of the classroom having learned the reverse of facts, you cannot blame lack of funds; you have to blame the teachers' mindset.

This is something that Stephanie actually did not touch. She was only talking about underperforming teachers. But my concern is about the formation and mentality of the whole teaching profession. I have been involved in school teaching myself a couple of times, and my impression of Britain's main teaching union, the NUT, was that it was more concerned with being Politically Correct than anything else. In the brief period of my involvement, I joined a smaller union that seemed more concerned with morale and order in the classoom.

Oh, I agree that kids are getting PC crap shoved at them...but public school teachers are forced to do it! Because of NCLB, we have to do certain things within the schools so the kids do well on the tests. If they don't, we lose funding and get on an "underperforming" list. When that happens, kids get the chance to go to a different school, and our school has to bus them (although they don't get the option of private school for some odd reason...).

Believe me, we hate this. Constantly, we're having to teach to the test. We didn't want the laptops in the schools at all; our state Department of Education said in a nutshell, "This is the way it's going to be...deal with it."

As far as state of the art, re-read the part of my post where I talk about my old tuba and bass drum. This year, I got enough money for a euphonium for one student. When he got it, he didn't know where to put his hands, because the instrument had EVOLVED in design since the last one we bought. We don't have the monies to get instruments. I have no MIDI capabilities, I don't have an overhead, hell I don't even have a blackboard. I'm below bare bones.

Have you looked into the NEA? Really looked? I understand that you've had experience with the British union, and from what you say it doesn't really sound like the NEA at all. I'm not saying we're perfect, far from actually. But in my profession, where if a kid gets pissed that you didn't give them a good grade, and they can press sexual assault charges on you (and I teach in a tiny room far away from the rest of the school, usually two students at a time so I am in danger of those things...) if you're in the NEA they'll see to it that you get legal representation and pay while you're being investigated. Being in the union means we can work as a large group to get better prices on oil. If not for the Maine chapter of the NEA, I wouldn't get paid for doing all the extras I have to do, such as pep band, night PETs and travel expenses if I have to drive a kid to All-State.

Education right now is the shit. Kids aren't learning anything, because teachers have to teach to about eight assessments every year. We see kids in first grade who don't want to come to school because they're tired of taking tests. We see kids who drop out at 16 because they've failed so many classes they KNOW they'll never meet the expectations, so why bother staying? The NEA is fighting NCLB tooth and nail because not every kid is the same, and that's what they want to do (those in government)

My dad believes that the necessity of most unions is a thing of the past

Is your dad an employer or an employee?
And does he think that exploitative employers are also 'a thing of the past'?

I've worked in unionised and non-unionised workplaces. The contractural arrangements were considerably superior in the more unionised workplaces, and the worst example of a non-unionised workplace was downright abusive (and illegal). Unions are not only useful in pay bargaining, they also provide legal back-up if employers break the law - and forcing employers to heed employment and health and safety law often makes for better management. (I certainly believe that unionisation would be beneficial to the organisation that currently has me on its payroll.) I'm in no position to comment on the US schoolteachers unions, but over here membership is crucial now that teachers are at increased risk of being sued.

Individual negotiation of contracts also penalises employees who don't have great negotiation skills, but whose other skills make valuable contributions to the organisation.

Where unions become problematic, from what I've seen, is when they forget that employees' interests are well served by the success of the company, for example, when health and safety reps wield their powers with more thought to damaging management than to improving health and safety.

I'm in agreement.

By the way, my father was both an employer and employee in his lifetime. I'm not sure of his reasons (he's uses a lot of economics terminology that I cannot grasp yet!). Perhaps my statement about unions as a thing of the past was too much, and a little unclear. He told me something about the strength of consumerism has decreased the need for unionized labor (as opposed to pre-New Deal times). I have no idea why, but he believes that this will be (or is) the trend Nevertheless, he certainly believes in their importance, though he also believes strongly in a system of checks and balances. As you mentioned in your last paragraph, sometimes the abuse of the union (oftentimes the power-trips of those leading them) can be just as bad as the abuse of management.

He told me something about the strength of consumerism has decreased the need for unionized labor

I'd be interested to know more about his reasoning for that. While there might have been an element of truth in it in the days when manufacturing companies wanted to make sure their employees could afford buy their products in order to build a customer base and fuel company growth, consumers and employees do not generally have the same interests. Consumerism can only benefit employees when the consumers are the employees (or where consumers make purchasing decisions on ethical grounds, but that applies only to a minority) - where goods are produced for an entirely different group the interests of consumers will take precedence over those of employees, except where there are legal or union-enforced safeguards.

Or maybe I'm missing your Dad's point?

Haha, no idea.

Wow! I'm finding myself in complete agreement with your sentiments.
"Snowball, meet hell. Hell - snowball!"

Blimey. Where do you find this stuff?

www.townhall.com

This is a problem in Australia right as we speak, because good little Johnny has made some pretty damning IR reforms that, in effect, take away many of the decent workplace laws that unions have brought about (i.e. unfair dismissal laws, etc).

Ah yes, who'd ever have thought it of dear Mr.Howard.

Snerk. For a minister who received preferences from the deceptively named 'Family First' party (essentially an off-shoot of a remarkably Americanised ministry here that effectively works as a cashcow and where the lead ministers have waterfront mansions), most of his policies have been remarkably anti-family in nature.

That is part of my point. One of the reasons why I hate union-busting so much is that it is a sort of fad, something that makes its adherents feel so modern and justified. Reading Sir Karl Popper (agnostic) and C.S.Lewis (Christian) showed that to justify anything by saying that it is "modern" or "up to date" justifies nothing; to paraphrase Lewis, to say that something is right because its time is come is as much as for a cancer to argue that it must be right because it can kill me. Inevitability, even if it is there, does not make a thing right. And yet people like Mr.Wallop and Mr.Howard justify their noxious actions by convincing themselves that trades unionism is a thing of the past, as though joining together to support each other against the strong had somehow become unfashionable. In this sort of thing you see how rotten argument and rotten thinking leads to crime.

Unionism (and thus, the Labor Party, which is otherwise completely politically useless) has been so ingrained in Australian culture that I don't think it will ever completely disappear, if only because so many of our major industries are those with heavy union involvement. Though union membership is dwindling, I really would hate to think of what will happen come August 1 when the new IR reforms are introduced, even though I desperately hate that bloated bag of hypocrisy that is Kim Beasley and his absolute two-faced support of the changes (essentially, a cruel, hard-assed conservative dressed up in workmen's gear).

And if there was no unionism, I doubt there'd be Midnight Oil or The Living End, and that would make Australian music a sad, sad thing.

You remind me that Tom Jones started his stellar career singing in Welsh working men's clubs, heartlands of old Labour feeling and trades unionism. But - if you ask me for another paper on "popular culture and trades unionism", I will shoot you.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So trades unionism is on the way out, is it?

Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

Re: Hmm

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject