mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/18/84)
simard@loral (Ray Simard) vs. kelly@tty3b (Mike Kelly): >why the implication >that corporate management is unconcerned with anything but >their balance sheets? What should they do; operate businesses as >social welfare agencies, and if there's a profit here and there, >well, that's nice too??? There's a contradiction here, Ray. First, you seem hurt that I think that management is concerned only with profits, then you say, "besides, how can they be concerned with anything else?" Briefly: most managers *are* concerned (at least in their work) only with profit margins, and you're right, the system forces them to take this stance. Of course businesses aren't run like social welfare agencies. They are run just like what they are: producers of profit for the owners. Any other result is coincidental to the real purpose of businesses. >Subminimum jobs would serve one purpose: to allow persons chronically >unemployed to experience the shift from an orientation around >despair and hopelessness, to productive use of time and exposure >to the work environment. Those who are alert can then move up >as their talent and experience grow. Let me rephrase this: subminimum wages would let persons chronically unemployed be employed *on management's terms* to gain experience. If the purpose is to provide jobs, there is no need to do so at subminimum wages. But, as you pointed out above, the purpose is *not* to provide jobs. The purpose is to provide profit, and in order to do that, subminimum wages are necessary. >Unions have made a valuable and necessary contribution to the well-being >of the worker. By offsetting the imbalance of power that once was held >by the owners and managers of business and industry, the unions have >accomplished enormous improvements. But the power balance can often >swing in unusual and destructive ways. Union leaders have of late >fostered the image of worker and management as adversaries, breeding >animosity and contempt on both sides that in the end hurts both. >Ownership, management and labor together make a business run, and you >cannot improve the lot of one by hurting the others. It is the prosperity >of the unit that creates the prosperity of the individual components. There is no need for union leadership to "foster the image" of worker and management as adversaries. Management has done a wonderful job of driving home to workers just how adversarial their relationship is. Most companies in America have not accepted trade unions as part of the economic system, and there is an ongoing attempt to literally destroy trade unions, through such tactics as moving production abroad, supporting anti-union legislation here, and simply stonewalling union negotiations. In industries such as auto and steel where unions have some measure of power, the companies have set as a long-range goal the elimination of union power through such tactics as out-sourcing (which allows them to transfer production from their own unionized shops to non-union shops) and sharply cutting wage scales for newly hired workers; this undermines support for the union by new workers and gradually reduces the number of union activists among workers. And don't forget that when the industry was in trouble, the union made massive concessions -- the steelworkers gave management concessions worth $4 billion in the last round of negotiations a few years back. In return, they are slapped in the face with huge increases in management salaries. >Kelly: >The advocates of abolishing the minimum wage ... say that it's OK for >people to be starving if that's what the market produces. > >Simard: >If that's "what the market produces" then nothing in the world will >keep people from starving. What the market produces is goods and services >that people are willing to pay for. Labor is required to create those >goods and services. The only way that anyone is ever employed is that >*first* a profit-making entity exists that is able to sell whatever >the worker produces. This is not by design, nor is it an example >of heartless capitalism, it is as much a fact of life as gravity. Let's tell the truth. Economics is not physics and the rules of the market are not physical laws. It is absurd to say about any social system that "nothing in the world" will change its outcome. Perhaps slavery is a "natural" system, feeding as it does off man's worst character. It, however, does not exist any longer in most of the world. And it doesn't exist because some people were wise enough to realize that social systems can be changed by people because people invented them in the first place. Your statement that the only way people are employed is that "*first* a profit-making entity exists" reflects your own priorities, not some natural law. Please be honest about that. Mike Kelly
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (08/20/84)
Mike: Your love for labor unions and the cause they were created for has distorted your objective view for what they have (and continue to) become. Larbor unions are CORPORATIONS run effectively as an unregulated monopoly ... with Federal and State support that protect that monopoly ... and in closed shop areas force it down the pocket books of workers that may not need or want it. The Myth is that workers unhappy with managment organize to better their workplace and salaries ... the fact is that unions TARGET sucessful companies by PLANTING union advocates and forcing elections. Anyone who as worked for a company that is a union TARGET will be subjected to DELAYED raises, DELAYED increases in benifits, DELAYED .... DELAYED ... DELAYED attempts of the management to meet the workers needs because the LAW prevents such during a union contest ... which is continous until either the employees get tired to the DELAYS and vote the union in, or the UNION GIVES UP (not very often). I have heard on ONLY ONE sucessful attempt to decertify a union ... that was a very ugly battle between the empolyees of the company and NON-EMPLOYEE union members. The employees that voted for the decertification were black listed ... making it tough to get a job in closed shop areas. On the other hand the employer SPECIFICALY DOESN'T have the right to black list UNION workers and prevent them from being hired ... that is against the LAW ... whose LAW? the UNION monopoly protection payoffs ... The Myth is that UNIONS make the WORK PLACE FAIRER by uniform wage scales ... the fact is that TRADE UNIONS a run by senior trades people and professional managers which are interested first in their salaries and second the salaries of the junior work force. The CARTEL of unions limits membership in a union to DEFEAT free market setting of wages by creating ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY of skilled trades people. The local concret truck drivers get $17.50/hr + plus benies of an other few dollars with no-layoff and guarentied year round employement AND a very good OVERTIME rate ... net effect is a basic salary of $17.50 * 8 * 5 * 52 = 36,400/yr with the average for a worker that works available overtime and has a little seniorty of over $50k/year. Contrast that with the 1984 average DP managers salary with 15yr experience of slightly over $40,400/yr. What is fair about a CLOSED union (go try to join it ... hope you have enough to PAY under and over the table) that BLACKMAILS the entire construction industry to raise wages to drivers (without a highschool education requirement) above that of MOST management personel across the broad range of US industry? Now for you stary eyed college students looking to make the big bucks ... consider that for every 1 of you there will be 10 UNION trades people who bring home a higher salary for less work and no education required ... for LIFE including a better and earlier retirement program on the average. Also consider that they CONTINUE divert the attention to the poor underpaid manager getting his first reasonable pay increase in 4 yrs of 15% ... while all along the UNION employees got COST of LIVING, +++ PLUS +++ minimum contract increases, ++++ plus +++ merit and time-in-grade raises due to union scale. They draw attention to concessions of trival dollar amounts in RELATIVE terms by using LARGE ABSOLUTE SUMS like 4 billion. UNIONS are quick to point a the few excesses in managment salaries ... but we never hear about the wage increases in BLACKMAILED union contracts as excesses ... in relation to job training, education, skill, degree of difficulty etc ... across the entire market ... what is the pay of other delivery drivers ... NOT %50k/yr average. But then it might be next year ... The time for PROTECTED CLOSED UNIONS is past ... they are a MONOPOLY of trade labor ... CORPORATIONs selling labor in a federally protected and closed market. In comparison AT&T and IBM are only minor industries ... It's PAST time to cut UNION excesses down to size. But try to raise that issue in our press (UNION CONTROLLED) and radio/tv media (UNION CONTROLLED) and goverment (UNION CONTROLLED). With our future being strangled by UNIONS everywhere of importance it IS NO STRONG WONDER that action to correct their abuse of industry go uncorrected. IN THE END it doesn't matter if UNION workers in the US have an average salary of $3.50/hr or $10/hr ... or what the minimum wage is ... what really matter is it LOW enough to allow american bussiness to compete in the world market with a STRONG US DOLLAR. The answer is NO ... US industry workers have OVERPRICED their labor by a factor of 2 to over 30 in some cases ... making it IMPOSIBLE for their employers and managment to make a profit or even CONTINUE BUSSINESS. That is why those big bad greedy business men are closing US shops, laying of US workers, and sending the JOBS over seas ... BECAUSE the BIGGER BADDER GREEDIER unions have priced themselves, the businesses, and the rest of NON-UNION professions clean out of the market ... You can keep your starry eyed vision of perfect union (and perfect socialist) workplaces while you look for one of the FEWER good jobs in the computer industry. Personally I think that a manditory 5 year education in SIBERIA would give those liberals mouthing BIGGER UNIONS an idea of what the perfect UNION really is ... a socialist state ... a prison by any free persons view point. Free today ... and would like to stay that way ... John Bass (Debate is the spice of life .. and a time to think and grow ..) (Next ...)
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/22/84)
>Mike: > Your love for labor unions and the cause they were created for >has distorted your objective view for what they have (and continue to) >become. I am not Mike Kelly, and I have no particular love or hatred of labor unions, but permit me to comment anyway on John Bass' remarks... > Larbor unions are CORPORATIONS run effectively as an unregulated >monopoly ... with Federal and State support that protect that monopoly ... >and in closed shop areas force it down the pocket books of workers that >may not need or want it. No argument here. The point of labor unions is to favor the collective good of their members over the individual good of members, potential members, non-members, employers, and total strangers. > The Myth is that workers unhappy with managment organize to better >their workplace and salaries ... the fact is that unions TARGET sucessful >companies by PLANTING union advocates and forcing elections. Anyone who >as worked for a company that is a union TARGET will be subjected to >DELAYED raises, DELAYED increases in benifits, DELAYED .... DELAYED ... >DELAYED attempts of the management to meet the workers needs because the >LAW prevents such during a union contest ... which is continous until >either the employees get tired to the DELAYS and vote the union in, or >the UNION GIVES UP (not very often). I have heard on ONLY ONE sucessful >attempt to decertify a union ... that was a very ugly battle between the >empolyees of the company and NON-EMPLOYEE union members. The employees >that voted for the decertification were black listed ... making it tough >to get a job in closed shop areas. On the other hand the employer SPECIFICALY >DOESN'T have the right to black list UNION workers and prevent them from >being hired ... that is against the LAW ... whose LAW? the UNION monopoly >protection payoffs ... The Myth is sometimes correct, and sometimes it is as John represents it. However, I don't feel it is any more realistic to idealize management. At least union leadership (except perhaps the Teamsters...) is ultimately accountable to its membership, i.e. employees, while management's ultimate responsibility is to the owners (except in the largest corporations where no stockholder holds a large bloc, in which case it is to the "directors", which is equivalent to no accountability, but this is another topic...). > The Myth is that UNIONS make the WORK PLACE FAIRER by uniform >wage scales ... the fact is that TRADE UNIONS a run by senior trades >people and professional managers which are interested first in their >salaries and second the salaries of the junior work force. The CARTEL >of unions limits membership in a union to DEFEAT free market setting >of wages by creating ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY of skilled trades people. >The local concret truck drivers get $17.50/hr + plus benies of an >other few dollars with no-layoff and guarentied year round employement >AND a very good OVERTIME rate ... net effect is a basic salary of $17.50 * 8 * 5 * 52 = 36,400/yr with the average for a worker that works >available overtime and has a little seniorty of over $50k/year. >Contrast that with the 1984 average DP managers salary with 15yr experience >of slightly over $40,400/yr. What is fair about a CLOSED union (go try >to join it ... hope you have enough to PAY under and over the table) >that BLACKMAILS the entire construction industry to raise wages to >drivers (without a highschool education requirement) above that >of MOST management personel across the broad range of US industry? Sounds like a description of the Teamsters to me... The point of most unions is to riase wages for workers, and yes, labor unions are cartels. The free market is not sacred, and I find no mention of it in the Bible. Competition (which is NOT synonymous with the free market) is a handy tool to achieve peak efficiency in the allocation of resources, but that does not mean that peak efficiency in the allocation of labor is automatically desirable. John implicitly assumes that ALL cartels are wrong/bad/whatever. And, hey, there are lots of good ARTIFICIAL things. Labor unions may unnatural as far as John is concerned, but unnatural is not the same as undesirable. > Now for you stary eyed college students looking to make the >big bucks ... consider that for every 1 of you there will be 10 UNION >trades people who bring home a higher salary for less work and >no education required ... for LIFE including a better and earlier >retirement program on the average. Well, they could choose to become union trade members, couldn't they? Hey, if you're going to argue that jobs requiring higher education are intrinisically more valuable than skilled blue collar work, how do you reconcile that with your previously proclaimed devotion to the free market? Even with a free market for labor, I'd be surprised if electricians made less than college grads who majored in English or Germanic Languages & Literature. > Also consider that they CONTINUE divert the attention to >the poor underpaid manager getting his first reasonable pay increase >in 4 yrs of 15% ... while all along the UNION employees got COST >of LIVING, +++ PLUS +++ minimum contract increases, ++++ plus +++ >merit and time-in-grade raises due to union scale. Labor unions generally have not complained about lower management's pay levels. Most of the heat has been directed at top executives who award (via a board of directors who run companies whose board of directors the CEO of this company is on) themselves stupendous bonuses on the basis of profits (which are more often the result of the general state of the economy or the management of ten years ago (who are not around anymore)) rather than performance. > They draw attention to concessions of trival dollar amounts >in RELATIVE terms by using LARGE ABSOLUTE SUMS like 4 billion. So? Who doesn't do this? Besides, 4 billion dollars is a lot in relative terms, even for a million employees. > UNIONS are quick to point a the few excesses in managment >salaries ... but we never hear about the wage increases in BLACKMAILED >union contracts as excesses ... in relation to job training, education, >skill, degree of difficulty etc ... across the entire market ... >what is the pay of other delivery drivers ... NOT %50k/yr average. >But then it might be next year ... Is all bargaining blackmail? The loser in any negotiation quickly resorts to that charge. When labor gets a nice contract, we here the above; conversely, when management holds the high cards, it is labor which charges blackmail. Using such emotionally laden words generates much heat without shedding any light. >The time for PROTECTED CLOSED UNIONS is past ... they are a MONOPOLY >of trade labor ... CORPORATIONs selling labor in a federally protected >and closed market. Yes, they are a monopoly. No, not all monopolies are bad. > In comparison AT&T and IBM are only minor industries ... AT&T was an example of a good example of a good monopoly, incidentally. > It's PAST time to cut UNION excesses down to size. But try to >raise that issue in our press (UNION CONTROLLED) and radio/tv media (UNION CONTROLLED) >and goverment (UNION CONTROLLED). In case you haven't noticed, unions are already much weaker than twenty years ago, and all indications are that trend will continue. Also, John's charges that the unions control everything seems to border on paranoia. I've read editorials on all types of media on either side of most labor issues, so maybe John just reads the wrong newspaper. It is also apparent to the most casual observer that the government is presently embarked on a course of weakening unions, not something which suggests union control. > With our future being strangled by UNIONS everywhere of importance >it IS NO STRONG WONDER that action to correct their abuse of industry >go uncorrected. It's no wonder that if you begin with the assumption that any restriction of the labor market is evil, that you conclude that unions are bad. Hey, and you said you were going to judge this objectively. I guess EVERYONE claims to be discussing things objectively. Larry Bickford's signoff has some merit. > IN THE END it doesn't matter if UNION workers in the US have an >average salary of $3.50/hr or $10/hr ... or what the minimum wage is ... >what really matter is it LOW enough to allow american bussiness to compete >in the world market with a STRONG US DOLLAR. Pardon my disagreement. Making labor as cheap in the US as it is in Hong Kong does not strike me as a desirable end, nor do I agree that the business of America is business. What prevents American from competing is not just expensive labor, but the fact that management is rewarded for immediate rather than future results. Given that climate, it is no wonder that a CEO will starve R&D for an Ad campaign, and will even grant contracts to unions which will become too expensive in the future...after all, it won't be HIS problem. > The answer is NO ... US industry workers have OVERPRICED their >labor by a factor of 2 to over 30 in some cases ... making it IMPOSIBLE >for their employers and managment to make a profit or even CONTINUE BUSSINESS. Hey, unions are not suicidal. Most businesses with real trouble have had to expend little effort to gain concessions from their workers. Failing companies don't get struck. > That is why those big bad greedy business men are closing US shops, >laying of US workers, and sending the JOBS over seas ... They'll do it as long as American workers get more than $0.35/hour. Labor intensive industry will continue its exodus at any reasonable wage level. The solution is not to bring the economy back to the level it was in 1900, but rather to cause industries to be more capital and technological intensive. Rather than depress wages, the goal ought to be to raise productivity. > BECAUSE the BIGGER BADDER GREEDIER unions have priced >themselves, the businesses, and the rest of NON-UNION professions clean >out of the market ... You can keep your starry eyed vision of perfect >union (and perfect socialist) workplaces while you look for one of >the FEWER good jobs in the computer industry. The reasoning escapes me. Unionism is costing non-union professionals their jobs? How? > Personally I think that a manditory 5 year education in SIBERIA >would give those liberals mouthing BIGGER UNIONS an idea of what the >perfect UNION really is ... a socialist state ... a prison by any >free persons view point. How's that? Unions aren't allowed in Siberia. Does this means John holds the Soviet Union to be a example of how desirable a lack of unions is? I think the Soviet Union would quickly become a better place if free trade unions were allowed. >Free today ... and would like to stay that way ... Free today ... and would like everyone to stay that way ... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
andree@uokvax.UUCP (08/25/84)
#R:tty3b:-46900:uokvax:5000104:000:832
uokvax!andree Aug 24 20:43:00 1984
/***** uokvax:net.politics / fisher!david / 5:58 pm Aug 22, 1984 */
How's that? Unions aren't allowed in Siberia. Does this means John
holds the Soviet Union to be a example of how desirable a lack of
unions is? I think the Soviet Union would quickly become a better
place if free trade unions were allowed.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
/* ---------- */
Sorry, but the SU does have a union. It's called the Communist Party. You
don't have to be a member to work (but you do have to vote!), but you can't
organize into another union (even if you're in another country).
It's the kind of union that should make every union lovers heart warm. It
runs the companies, so it sets wages, working hours, and benies. Of course,
it also runs the country, but that's a detail. The Perfect Union.
<mikedavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/29/84)
>/***** uokvax:net.politics / fisher!david / 5:58 pm Aug 22, 1984 */ >How's that? Unions aren't allowed in Siberia. Does this means John >holds the Soviet Union to be a example of how desirable a lack of >unions is? I think the Soviet Union would quickly become a better >place if free trade unions were allowed. > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david >/* ---------- */ >Sorry, but the SU does have a union. It's called the Communist Party. You >don't have to be a member to work (but you do have to vote!), but you can't >organize into another union (even if you're in another country). >It's the kind of union that should make every union lovers heart warm. It >runs the companies, so it sets wages, working hours, and benies. Of course, >it also runs the country, but that's a detail. The Perfect Union. > <mike This newgroup is being overrun by melodramatic analogy. Suggesting US labor unions are akin to the Soviet Communist Party has as much merit as a previous suggestion that the Republican Party bears substantial resemblance to the Nazi Party. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/29/84)
From: andree@uokvax.UUCP >Sorry, but the SU does have a union. It's called the Communist Party. You >don't have to be a member to work (but you do have to vote!), but you can't >organize into another union (even if you're in another country). > >It's the kind of union that should make every union lovers heart warm. It >runs the companies, so it sets wages, working hours, and benies. Of course, >it also runs the country, but that's a detail. The Perfect Union. This, of course, is the same kind of red-baiting that trade unionists have learned to expect from the right wing. Analyze the impeccable logic here: you are for trade unions; the Soviet Union has a make-believe trade union; therefore, you are for this make-believe trade union. QED. The irony is that the trade union movement is probably one of the strongest bastions of anti-communism. The leadership in many unions today are the same people who presided over the purges of communists from the unions after WW II. I hope that it is self-evident that one can defend the rights of workers to organize without having to defend the distortion of that by the Soviet Union. Rhetoric is not reality, and calling an organization a free union does not make it one. Mike Kelly
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/29/84)
==========
Sorry, but the SU does have a union. It's called the Communist Party. You
don't have to be a member to work (but you do have to vote!), but you can't
organize into another union (even if you're in another country).
==========
What kind of union is the Communist Party in the USSR? I never heard
of a Union with such strict requirements for membership, and that had nothing
to do with conditions of work or content of work.
It is quite hard to become a member of the Communist Party in the USSR,
not like a political party here (and not like a Union either). You do
have to be a member to get far in Government, though, and probably for
other responsible positions as well.
The original statement about the USSR being a country without real unions
seemed fair. Somebody may know whether the controlled unions that exist
in other Communist countries also exist there.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtgrass@uiucdcsb.UUCP (09/02/84)
#R:dciem:-108900:uiucdcsb:11000099:000:808 uiucdcsb!grass Sep 2 13:49:00 1984 <Tishe edesh', dal'she budesh'> The USSR does have professional unions of the kind found in other Eastern Block countries. Examples: The Writer's Union, The Composer's Union, etc. These essentially control these professions AND act as a kind of social club besides. (I've been to the Composer's Union Building in Leningrad, it has the atmosphere of a rather exclusive club). These are clearly not western style unions, they have absolutely no power in protecting the intrests of the members, except perhaps by limiting access to the profession to a politically reliable group. They do act as an intermediate in applying government (or Party) controls. Usually there is no need for these to be applied overtly. The members censor themselves. -- Judy Grass University of Illinois - Urbana
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (09/03/84)
The Communist Party indeed bills itself as THE worker's union. I have
been told this by a member of the Communist Party, and it is the main
justification used to make Solidarity illegal in Poland. The idea is
that the workers already have a union, the best one in the world, the
Communist Party. They say that with the Communist Party protecting them,
the workers need none other; others would only interfere and cause
division among the workers.
Alan Algustyniak (ihnp4!sdcrdcf!alan)
(allegra!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)mwm@ea.UUCP (09/03/84)
#R:fisher:-29700:ea:22400001:000:714 ea!mwm Sep 3 13:30:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / fisher!david / 1:52 pm Aug 29, 1984 */ >Sorry, but the SU does have a union. It's called the Communist Party. >The Perfect Union. > <mike This newgroup is being overrun by melodramatic analogy. Suggesting US labor unions are akin to the Soviet Communist Party has as much merit as a previous suggestion that the Republican Party bears substantial resemblance to the Nazi Party. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david /* ---------- */ I didn't say the Soviet Communist Party resembled any US labor unions (it doesn't), I said that it is a union (it is). Other than misinterpreting what I said, you are correct - such a suggestion would be ridiculous. <mike
mwm@ea.UUCP (09/03/84)
#R:tty3b:-47600:ea:22400002:000:3374 ea!mwm Sep 3 14:10:00 1984 Hi again, Mike. > From: andree@uokvax.UUCP > >Sorry, but the SU does have a union. It's called the Communist Party. You > >don't have to be a member to work (but you do have to vote!), but you can't > >organize into another union (even if you're in another country). > > > >It's the kind of union that should make every union lovers heart warm. It > >runs the companies, so it sets wages, working hours, and benies. Of course, > >it also runs the country, but that's a detail. The Perfect Union. > > This, of course, is the same kind of red-baiting that trade unionists have learned > to expect from the right wing. Analyze the impeccable logic here: you are for > trade unions; the Soviet Union has a make-believe trade union; therefore, you are > for this make-believe trade union. QED. Would you please point out where I (yes, that was me) used that logic? Nowhere do I see anything that says that you (or anyone else) was for the Communist Party. What I did do was state that the Communist Party has attributes that every Union lover would like. Do you deny that you wouldn't like a union that ran the companies, set wages, etc? > The irony is that the trade union movement is probably one of the strongest > bastions of anti-communism. The leadership in many unions today are the same > people who presided over the purges of communists from the unions after WW II. I'm not familiar with that. Could you provide details? It's easy to believe, though; denying people access to jobs based on political believes would fit right in with most union actions. > I hope that it is self-evident that one can defend the rights of workers to > organize without having to defend the distortion of that by the Soviet Union. Yup, it's self-evident. I hope it's equally self-evident that one can attack closed shop laws & people who assault other people without attacking the rights of workers to organize. > Rhetoric is not reality, and calling an organization a free union does not make > it one. Once again, could you point out where I used the word "free?" I stated that Communist Party was a union. I still stand by that statement. It definitely isn't free - and is much farther from freedom than any union I know of in the US. I would, though, like to see an example of a "free" union. I have never attacked anyones right to organize. I have attacked closed shop laws (which violate peoples right to work), and the unions bad habit of assaulting people who are willing to work without union permits [mjk, of course, doesn't like the police protecting those people, or, as he put it, "protecting the rights of management to hire people during a strike" (that's a paraphrase).] Workers *should* be able to organize. They should *not* be allowed to force others into their union, or to keep others from working. Likewise, I have never attacked the Russian people (the lunatics that run the country, yes. Think of a crazier version of RR running a country where he could appoint people & in general run the country without having to worry about losing power. Now, doesn't *that* scare you?) or the communist party in America. I don't think a person should discriminated against on the basis of religion or politics - unless they try to cram them down my throat. Both Liberals and Christians have a bad habit of that, so I bitch about those practices. <mike
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/06/84)
The closed shop argument is attractive, because it *seems* so democratic. In fact, it is just another tool in managements toolbox for destroying trade unions. No one "forces" a union into a shop, with very few exceptions (and I'll join you in condemning the undemocratic Teamsters, but I still think that those workers are better with a corrupt union than no union at all -- and many Teamsters have told me as much. Organizations such as Teamsters for a Democratic Union are trying to change the Teamsters internally, and they deserve support.) Unions are established in a shop as a result of a lot of hard work by workers in that shop. It is true that union organizers play a role, but it is generally a very minor role. It is up to the workers in the shop to organize their fellow workers into signing election cards. Only after a majority of people in the shop have signed cards calling for an election can an NLRB- supervised election be called. Then, a majority of workers must vote to accept the union. But it's not over. The local board of the union is elected from among the workers to run the union local. These people handle contract bargaining (or in some large unions, elect the bargainers for national contract talks), grievances, and the day-to-day operation of the union. They hire the union staff. a What I'm trying to show here is that unions are democratic, and like our government, no one can just opt out. You can fight within the democracy to change it, but you can't decide that you just don't want to be part of it. That's anarchy, and it doesn't work very well. The "right-to-work" argument is a management red herring. The organizations that have helped more than any to guarantee a right-to-work are unions themselves. With few exceptions, they were at the forefront of the civil rights movement. They fought for the benfits that everyone takes for granted today. The "right-to-work" is just another way for management to break workers up in a divide-and-conquer strategy that ends up with very weak unions, or no unions at all. Mike Kelly
mwm@ea.UUCP (09/19/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / tty3b!mjk / 6:31 pm Sep 6, 1984 */ The "right-to-work" argument is a management red herring. Mike Kelly /* ---------- */ I love it. For people outside the union, the right to work is a management red herring, and all they get is the right to starve. For people inside the union, the right to work is "job security," and a major bargaining point. Syjigm at its finest. Come on, Mike - tell us one more time how union monopolies are good for society. If you repeat it often enough, you may hypnotize us, too. <mike
holt@convex.UUCP (09/21/84)
> The "right-to-work" argument is a management red herring. > > Mike Kelly Hogwash. "Right to work" means that it is not necessary for a person to belong to a union in order to qualify for a job. We are talking about human rights here, not management rights. Unions want to keep workers out who would be willing to work for lesser wages, and do the same job as union workers. This is power politics, nothing more, nothing less. Keeping unions strong by making union membership mandatory is the goal of disallowing "right-to-work" laws. foo! Come on Kelly, how can you assert that right-to-work is a management red herring. There are plenty of non-union working class people who disagree with you. I know, you sit at your terminal and spout left wing nonsense, earning your comfortable salary, able to ignore the needs of the working class you purport to support. foo! Dave Holt Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holt
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (09/24/84)
Technical correction: "Right to work" does not mean that you have to BE a union member to qualify for a job; it means that you don't have to join the union after you get the job. The Taft Hartley act outlawed contracts in which you have to be a union member in order to qualify for the job. It permits contracts in which you must join the union (and it must accept you) if you get the job. States which have right-to-work laws outlaw contracts in which you have to join the union after you get the job. The term, "right-to-work" , is a misnomer; your right to work is not infringed. Right-to-work laws free you from the compulsion to pay union dues. In practice states which have "right-to-work" laws have weaker unions because the unions get less dues income. People who argue against "right-to-work" laws argue that all employees get the benefits of union negotiations; therefore all employees should pay for the union. People arguing for such laws object to the compulsion to join and pay dues. (Actually most arguments for "right-to-work" laws dishonestly claim that they are actually right-to-work laws; however the argument against compulsion is a valid and legitimate one.) In practice management groups support "right-to-work" laws on the pragmatic grounds that they weaken unions.