How would you respond to this anti-union argument?

[rockymountaindem]

I was having lunch with a friend who works at a campus bookstore. She said that either today or tomorrow she was going to ask for a raise (she currently makes about $8 an hour at a major university bookstore where you can pay upwards of $90 for some books). I had made some joke earlier about socialism, so I said half sarcastically "aren't you much better off since you have a union to support your attempt to get a raise?" knowing that hardly anybody on campus is a fan of the unions we have around here.

She said that she hates the union because it ties her wage to the productivity of the worst worker. She says that if not for the union, she would be free to make as much money as her level of productivity justifies, and that she wouldn't be forced to lump herself in with people who aren't as efficient and therefore don't make as much money. An economics major, she explained how wages are tied to productivity, as I well know, but I had always thought that was more of a macroeconomic topic, not one that would play out in a bookstore with less than 100 employees.

I'm not all that knowledgeable on labor relations (although I do support unions). What is your critique of this argument? Would she really be better off without the union if she is more productive than the average worker? Is her wage really tied to the lowest common denominator? I said that if there were no union, they would just fire her and hire two people willing to do the work for less money. She again pulled out the productivity argument, but I don't think that really makes sense since she's making so close to minimum wage here in Canada.

Anybody have any arguments I could use as to why the union is actually good for this friend of mine?

[acmavm]

1. Tell her without a union she'd be damn lucky to get minimum

wage and to go read some Upton Sinclair.

[rockymountaindem]

4. I kind of did tell her that

but she had some rather more complex arguments for me to handle economically that are kind of out of my realm at this point. Got any specifics why she'd be lucky to make minimum wage without a union? I believe you, but I'd like to be able to refute her a little better.

[Selatius]

15. The Fair Labor Standards Act was the product of unionists with help from..

socialists and other leftist groups. The reason she is treated so well by employers is precisely because they had to fight for that level of treatment. In the past, employers were under no obligations to treat workers so good, and they didn't because there was no impetus to do so from within the business community except for a few folks like Ford, who eventually lost in court in Dodge v. Ford. As an aside, here's a brief overview of that famous case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

[rustydog]

2. does this person get days off from work?

unions gave Americans the 5 day work week.
does this person get paid vacations?
does this person get sick time?
does this person have family medical leave time available?

Unions backed these ideas, along with minimum wages otherwise this worker would be making what Wal-mart pays people in China.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. There is no particular linkage between wages & productivity.

You can see it in the marketplace right now, with productivity continuing to rise & wages languishing.

In a free-market economy (which we don't have), wages might rise & fall with supply & demand for labor, but the big guys can manipulate the supply of labor however they want. Increasing immigration has been one traditional way.

If there had never been unions, there would be no 40-hour week, no Saturdays off, no unemployment compensation, little safety protection, no retirement benefits, etc. & everyone would be at starvation wages. You don't like ourt working conditions & pay? Fine. We'll find a Honduran or East Indian who does.

[SharonAnn]

39. But there IS linkage between wages and office politics. She would

probably resent the fact that those who did better brown-nosing would get more wages.

If she's been around a few stores and offices she should be able to see that those who get the most rewards and not the most productive.

And those at the top can manipulate things a million ways to justify what the pay people.

[Sanity Claws]

5. Actually what she said is not true

The employer does not look at some formula of productivity and then determines an individual's pay. It looks at how low it can pay. Yes, some employers do pay more for certain employees whom it believes are better workers. However, the employer does not necessarily measure that by productivity. In fact, employers often do stupid things, in terms of economics, by discriminating against certain types of workers.
Without a union, workers are considered at-will, where the employer can fire at will, for no reason, a bad reason, a stupid reason. It happens all the time. Further, without a union, the employer can change pay and benefits without notice.
Finally, unionized workers make more money than non-unionized. I'm sure if you do a google search, you can find the statistics.
Her statements show a naivete, which is a result of the failure to teach labor history in the schools.

Edited for typos.

[spag68]

25. Wages

While it may be true that union workers make more then non union workers, generally the wages in any area move up when unions increase the wage. All workers benefit from union pay scales.

[rman]

6. Wages used to be higher,

(relatively speaking) when unions had widespread popular support.

Unions protect workers from exploitation by employers, who do have a vested interest in paying their workers the lowest possible wages.

The problem with minimum wage being to low started when unions started losing support due to propaganda and union-busting.

[Vincardog]

7. Look to history. In the last 5 years productivity is up pay is down.

Working at a campus bookstore how exactly does she measure her productivity? It is not as if the students coming in with their class lists and required texts have a lot of choice in what they buy.

Unions were responsible in lowering the work week from 80 hours to 40.
Unions were responsible for instituting workplace health requirements.
Unions were responsible for getting workers health coverage and retirement benefits.

From the sound of this person she sounds like one of the republiCANTS wanting everyone else to pull themselves up by their own boot straps while they are busy slipping on their $600/pair silver slippers.

[MindPilot]

8. Speaking as a former Denverite, your sig is, well...accurate.

To answer your question, unless she is paid a commission of some sort, wages are not really linked to productivity. They have a lot more to do with seniority and job description. Advantage of the union? She most likely will not get fired for asking for a raise. And she probably has a boatload of benefits that she wouldn't have if not for the union.

[LisaM]

9. Unrelated to the wage issue, a bookstore does not make much off $90 books

College bookstores make money off used books. Those heavily-priced textbooks have very low markup. I worked at a university bookstore for years - profits were all to do with used books, and with clothing.

[marano35]

46. Tell her shes right.

Tell her that if she wants to make more money she should work more hours or get a second job. Tell her that she has no right to expect higher pay from her employer as that would cut into their profit margin greatly cutting into fuel for their boat or beachhouse. Tell her is she does'nt like her pay she is at least free to seek employment elsewhere. Tell her to pull herself up by her bootstraps. Tell her that she is what is wrong with the system. Tell her she is right that if it were'nt for labor unions she would be making more money even though her wages would be lower because there would be no weekend to cut into the hours she could work.

[CountAllVotes]

10. if it were not for my union I would have NO health insurance

that is right, I would have NONE as I am uninsurable!

Let her chew on that fact!

:kick:

[rockymountaindem]

14. Well, up here in Canada that isn't a concern

[LostInAnomie]

11. Unless she were to get commission I fail to see her point.

That is the only way I can see wages being tied to productivity in the service sector. Otherwise she would be paid the same regardless of how hard she worked.

[Nickster]

12. Just my own experience from working in a union shop. My wages went

up every year regardless of productivity, that was just a cost of living increase. Every person got bumped up that much, so that everyone would have a base salary to work off of. I would also get my normal yearly raise of whatever they decided I was worth. The individual pay bands moved up every year as well so the min and the max nudged up for that COLA. The paybands might have also been bumped up because of a contract negotiated increase. The paybands were fairly wide and I was free to excel and meet the max of that payband or get promoted into the next payband. I wasn't tied down to anyone's unproductive ways.

I'm sure that those paybands would have been much less if there wasn't a union involved. It took me several years to reach the same pay rate that I had left in my union gig when I started to work in non-union places. If no one is forcing a corporation to pay their workers and they are able to get people that will accept low wages, why should they raise anything?

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. At a bookstore, I doubt that there would be merit-based pay

She probably is better off, in that situation, with the union, even though it does stifle productivity and rewards the lazy just as well as the producers, as well as ties wages (quite wrongfully, IMO) to tenure instead of ability.

There are places where unions are essential -- and there are places where unions would be disruptive and cause more harm than the good they bring.

Sadly, no matter what, in the relations between employer and employee there is no easy answer to the "union or no union" question, and no perfect solution to anything, except this: employers, on their own good will, pay their people properly, reward them for going above and beyond, and give them benefits befitting a human being.

Sadly, in a lot of places, that just ain't gonna happen, and so the union is necessary.

[gully]

16. "ties her wage to the productivity of the worst worker?"

Absurd. Even unionized people can get fired for being schleps. I worked for many years NON union and made virtually the same as schleps in my department.

[lrsmith1]

33. Then the schelps will go to their union

and have the union fight the employer which will cost the employer money. Also if you are making the same amount as the other schelps in your department maybe you should look at another department or company. You do have the ability to increase your education to make yourself more valuable so you can make more money, if thats your goal. Its up to you. Yes, unions were helpful years ago for educating their members but with the increase in income over the years by the unions it has driven these same companies out to other countries so they can be competitive in the world market.

[gully]

34. I worked in finance and every like company had the same story.

Oh no, did you say that "poor employers" may have to spend "MONEY" to defend themselves? You are aware that the same thing happens when people who are fired wish to collect unemployment are you not? Also under the current administration not EVERYONE has the ability to further their education. Student loans and grants have been gutted. Additionally, I know people with their masters who make less money than I did without achieving the same educational status.

[lrsmith1]

43. Yes, I said they would have to defend

themselves both from legitimat cases that the employer should have to pay and nut cases. As far as education goes, I did not mean to go back to school unless the job requires it, I meant to get the knowledge to get a higher paying job.

[gully]

58. Your point is not limited to unions.

PERIOD. As for a higher paying job, your "suggestion" does not pertain to everyone.

[Occulus]

65. And if the job you currently work is during class, you...?

I can't go to school until I leave my (union, federal) job because their scheduling is too inflexible to meets the needs of education for the (nonunion, nonfederal, very very lucrative) field I'm trying to get into.

As usual, your "bootstraps" theory fails out of the gate. By the way- this has been the case for me for years. I'm doing what I can to learn on my own, but that will take far longer than it woulf if I could go to school.

Personally I see no reason why education shouldn't be like what we want health care to be- there's no reason at all our government couldn't guarantee all US citizens a chance at a 4-year degree. Yeahy, I'm talking about another, new entitlement.

Make it 100% doable for everyone who is mentally capable to go to college if they want to, without them having to cough up $40-50K for it right out of high school, and I'll buy your argument about 'getting an education'.

For far too many, even those like me who are literally breaking their backs to make sure your mail gets delivered on time, additional education isn't an option because we took your advice and went out and got a "good job".

Well, okay- now what? The job forbids the formal education; we work and sleep and have no time because we're too busy just paying the rent and the bills. Yeah, I got a job- and I want to get out of it- but I can't leave this job until the debts are paid. Meanwhile, the owners of those debts go out of their way to make it harder for me and others to pay them off, thus ensuring I won't "get an education" for some time to come.

As usual, your overly simplistic "bootstrap" theory ignores the very real and irresolvable complexities of the real-world situations many of us who really would like to go back to school face. By the time I'm holding a degree in my hands, I'll probably be forty years old, in a field where new entrants are half that age. I'll have to compete twice as hard for half the credit, which means I'll have to bust ass in school- which means I can't be distracted by missed classes because I couldn't get a schedule change in the job I have now.

Nuance and complexity are part of the real world... but they are seemingly absent from your "bootstrap" theory.

[lrsmith1]

67. That is the sorriest excuse I've ever heard. My ex-wife worked from home

as a day care then went to school at night and weekends. She got the training to be a EMT and has gone to work with a fire department. She is 44 and has 2 children with a new husband. Yes, she worked her butt off and she loves her new job. Get over this thing that the Government is to give you what ever you want. If you want something bad enough make it happen.

[earth mom]

68. Tell that to all the workers who have been outsourced or those

who are still unemployed after months if not years of job hunting! There are plenty of em around DU as well as this country thanks to * and his buddies. :puke:

FYI-Your post sounds like a very old and tired right wing meme. :eyes:

[newyawker99]

59. Hi lrsmith1!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[originalpckelly]

17. People who work without unions don't get productivity raises...

Productivity has grown leaps and bounds over the past few years, but when wages are adjusted for inflation, they have not increased. Ask her what would compel the boss to increase her wage if she is being productive at her current wage? Without a union you have no way to leverage your value as an individual in an environment with many replaceable people, such as a a salesperson in a bookstore. If you go into an office and refuse to work productively (basically go on strike) until your wage is increased, the boss will simply fire you. However, if everyone working in the store in all shifts walk into the boss and say they refuse to work at a given wage, then the boss will listen. And in a big union where all people in a trade agree to not work for a boss, it reduces the possibility that all people will be fired and a whole new crew will be hired.

[thoughtanarchist]

18. She sounds like she's blaming the floor for her weight.

...and she would be correct if she said that the floor ties her to the gravity of the heaviest person. Yet the only function that floor is serving is to support her.

By the way, does she think some labor fairy will appear in a puff of smoke and give her a raise for being so productive and valuable if the union gets busted?

:eyes:

[BrotherBuzz]

19. Collective bargaining with a party of one against management?

Please Sir, I demand a raise. :rofl:

[last1standing]

20. There's a lot to contradict in that argument.

1. Her wages aren't tied "to the productivity of the worst worker". Her wages are tied to a negotiated deal made on her behalf in order to get her the best pay possible from a management who's only goal is to increase investor profit. If she's an economics major she should have already learned that basic lesson of business.

2a. Non-union businesses often use the excuse of not wanting to be "unfair" in order to keep wages suppressed. So whether she's a good worker or a bad one, she would be unlikely to get much of a merit raise.

2b. That is unless she's a favorite of her management, in which case her productivity would probably have very little to do with her wages. In a non-union environment sucking up usually nets far more than competency. That's not just my opinion, any guide to office politics will tell you the same thing.

3. Also, as an economics major she should be able to read the data that proves that while productivity and corporate earnings are going through the roof in the US, average wages are falling. This can't be due to unions as their numbers have been falling for years. So high productivity is no longer attached to employee wages in this country and the same will happen in Canada if she as well as others follow through with their simplistic belief that working harder alone will show results.

4. She's in college, tell her to grab a book on economics and business practices of the 19th century for a good look at what life was like for the average worker before unions came along. A quick read of "The Jungle" wouldn't hurt, either.

5. If all that doesn't work then just understand that she's going to believe what she wants to believe, facts be Damned.

[spag68]

21. Union

The formation of any union is designed to give workers a living wage. Collective bargaining is the tool that keeps employers honest, without it this lady if she is more qualified and productive would be given more and more to do until she broke, then they would fire her. The union also stands for equal pay for equal work male or female. I am retired form The IBEW where training is a major item the union undertakes. Even with the union there chances to move up the pay scale. Ask if she remembers the early 1900 hundreds and 80 hour work weeks and ash if she would prefer that? Here in the US the unions are fighting just to keep up with the corporations for a living wage and benefits, still look at the airlines and other industry's. The first chance they got they dumped the pensions of the workers but the execs and lawyers got their share. There are hundreds of things to be said, but You only need to go back to Ronnie Reagas firing the air traffic controllers and hiring replacements at 35% less, look how that worked out.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Why respond to a jackass?

"If only unions didn't hold workers back!"

:rofl:

If you can do better on your own, rock on. Just make sure though that you start your journey with NONE of the benfits that unions have attained for the American worker.

Rock on, jackass.

[noonwitch]

23. I appreciate my union for the most part, but...

Sometimes they are totally useless, and occasionally they are corrupt. (The UAW).

[last1standing]

26. You've just described every group of people in existence.

Why should unions be any different than police departments, golf clubs, the KofC, your average tenants association, the PTA, etc....? Unions are made of of the same fallible people as the rest of society and there will be some corruption and uselessness in any of them, yet somehow, unions get labeled with the corruption and useless tags much more often.

It couldn't be corporate propaganda doing that could it? :shrug:

[spag68]

27. The UAW

may have corruption, but it couldn't exist if the workers do not allow it, further nothing is perfect, so keep the good and work for better.Your vote in union affairs is as important as your vote for politicians.

[INdemo]

31. I agree..but the UAW is certainly not as corrupt as the Construction

trade unions..Our pension funds are being syphoned and chalked up as administrative costs,no more electing our reps. because they are now appointed,,etc,...over all unions have certainly lost their clout over the years and perhaps the reason is the benefit package given to the union leaders by the industry they negotiate with..

[catnhatnh]

24. Ok....

here is my argument....she is merely the whipped cream on top of the sundae.....Got it-she is just an embellishment of something that,if you have to have, you have to have.Talk about a self-inflation of value-she sells something the students are REQUIRED to buy, and she thinks she does this SO MUCH better that she deserves a wage far above the rest??? Part of her arguement goes to self-actualization-ie: "I'm good at what I do." But in point of fact, if the only source of a textbook was a blind albino dwarf speaking only esperanto, the students would have no choice but to describe to him or her how to find the text IN ESPERANTO by feel and to pay the normal price. In a fixed market the ONLY guarantee of a just wage is a union-which will negotiate a living wage for all people to perform the same task. At this level getting it done is getting it done-Books are sold to people who must have these books-you can do it well or poorly but the books must be obtained and a good line of rap or even knowledge changes nothing when the customer says "I need this."She may be more pleasant or clever than other clerks-but she adds no tangible value...

[LisaM]

32. Actually, I don't agree with you there. I worked at a college bookstore

for many years, and one of our selling points was that during book rush we could get them through the checkout lines faster. We could also do things like keep the books stacked and ready to go, help people find their books quickly, buy back their used books much faster than at other stores, and generally make their required trip to the bookstore quicker and more pleasant. We could also decipher what book they were looking for if they had the information all wrong (e.g., I once figured out that "Adventures in Ethiopia" was really supposed to be "Kibbutz: A Venture in Utopia"). I had a roommate who worked at the same store for one term, and all she ever did was sit on the floor and read books - she did not last at the job. My point is that there can be a huge difference between bookstore employees.

[Shakespeare]

28. She may be an econ major, but she doesn't know shit about unions...

...or how they operate. What is she, a Friedman acolyte? :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

64. doesn't know shit about econ, it sounds like

[catnhatnh]

29. One more reply...

...because I'm sick of anti-union bullshit by dillitentes...go to management right now and renounce your union membership.Tell them you quit and are willing to stand or fall on your own merits and are willing to devote your obvious brilliance to management-then don't let the door hit you on the way out...

[patcox2]

30. Her argument only works assuming equal bargaining power.

If, on the other hand, there is unequal bargaining power, the employer simply pockets the increased productivity as increased profits.

The union equalizes bargaining power, without it her own argument fails.

Besides which, she overestimates her ability to be so much more productive that the difference is measurable as a practical matter. In most jobs individual productivity is not even measured, as the differences are so small as to make it not worth while.

Those occupations in which differences in productivity are measurable and do make a difference tend to be compensated on a commission basis, for the very purpose of measuring and rewarding increased productivity.

[China_cat]

35. Here are some of the reasons.

Overall, union workers’ salaries are 27% higher than non-union workers’.
89% of union workers have access to employer-provided medical benefits Only 67% of nonunion workers do.
73% of union workers have dental coverage, compared with 43% of nonunion workers.
56% of union workers receive vision care benefits; only 26 percent of nonunion workers are covered.


And no, her salary is NOT tied to her productivity unless she's doing piecework, which (if I understand it correctly) is illegal even without a union. Without the union, her salary is tied to whatever the owners of the company want to pay her.

This chart should help:

[lrsmith1]

42. That 27% more sounds good for the employees

but where does that 27% come from and how much is the take-home pay? Some of that 27% increase goes for medical, Dental and union dues. How does one company that pays its employees 27% more, which increases cost, compete with a company that does not? ie: non-union or off-shoring.

[China_cat]

47. It is a total of 27% more

counting in all benefits so you can see a 27% increase in take home pay. Companies with unions tend to take a smaller profit per unit but make up for it in increased satisfaction of workers, less time out and much less turnover which saves the company money on retraining new hires. Union oversight of safe working conditions also saves companies money by preventing injuries and health problems that would cost the company much more in the long run in worker compensation lawsuits.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. A *campus bookstore* would base wages on productivity?

In what alternative universe? Bookstores are notorious for paying low wages, because they can get educated liberal arts majors who like the atmosphere there better than they like the atmosphere at WalMart.

And how do you define productivity for a bookstore employee? Number of books sold? Number of books shelved?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Depends On The Union, Depends On The Company.

Some consider it a blessing to be within a Union and some Union's are absolutely vital to safety and fairness concerns of employees. Other Unions might not be so positive and instead create an atmosphere tolerant of doing the least work admissable without risk of immediate termination, while holding others back due to the arguments your friend specified.

I can't give you a direct answer, because in my opinion each Union within each Company are unique in their essence so it would be impossible to give a response that is a blanket response to each situation.

In the end, if your friend feels that way there really isn't anything wrong with it. Hopefully she just understands that not every Union environment is that way and that there are some that are vital.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. How does she measure her productivity?

When you work at a campus bookstore, it's hard to measure productivity. If it was based on the amount that she sold and she sold twice as much as the other workers, then it would make good economic sense for her boss to give her a raise up to $15.99 an hour instead of her quitting and him having to pay two minimum salaries of $8 an hour to match her productivity. But productivity in this case isn't all that measurable and although she may be a good employee, proving that her productivity is higher than another employee would be pretty difficult.

Also as some have mentioned above, employers don't make good economic decisions all of the time. The guy that sleeps on the job might get paid more because he sucks up to the boss.

It seems that her argument works great in a textbook, but not in the real world.

[Sapere aude]

40. Wages aren't tied to anything. They are only what the employer can and

will pay. Most employers think of wages as something they can manipulate in order to make the profits they want. You can be as productive as a rabbit but if the employer can't or won't pay a higher wage you don't get a raise.

Students who think wages are tied to productivity are too new in the work force to know shit from shine-ola.

[northzax]

41. in an ideal world, sure

if compensation was directly tied to performance, and fairly applied across the board, then no one would ever need a union. Guess what? world ain't perfect.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. And therein lies the mechanism through wich the right wing coopts

people who actually are their primary prey.

Make them believe, falsely, that they are "above the rabble" and "deserve better."

[Toucano]

45. Your friend's argument is fundamentally incorrect.

Although it is probably what she has been taught, the truth is no one's wages are determined by their productivity. Wages are determined by how little someone else is willing to do the same job for.

Let's say your friend is is a cashier who can process 50 customers every hour in a non-union store. A co-worker is also a cashier but he processes only 40 customers per hour. It would sound like your friend is a greater asset to the bookstore and would deserve more money than her co-worker.

But labor is not an asset (despite the BS they tell you). It is always an expense.

So your friend goes to her boss and asks for a raise. She says, "Look, I'm your most productive worker, so I should get $8.50 per hour instead of $8.00."

The boss says, "Sure, you're a great cashier and everyone likes you. However, there's a woman outside my office who can also process 50 customers each hour. Her husband just left her for a younger woman and she has three kids to feed. She's willing to work for $7.00 per hour. I have to let you go because my bonus is tied to how much I spend on labor. It's been nice knowing you."

Separating the cost of labor from the value of labor is the whole point of capitalism. The difference is called PROFIT.

[DefenseLawyer]

53. And there you have it.

One won't find a better or easier to understand analysis than that.

[bluedogyellowdog]

48. Higher productivity means squeezing more work out of you for less pay

When employers talk about increasing productivity they are talking about squeezing more work out of you without a corresponding pay raise - or replacing you entirely with somebody willing to work harder for less pay. The idea that wages would be linked to productivity and she would make more money for working harder if not for the unions is just wishful thinking. What would in fact happen would be her wages would be linked to the *most* productive (i.e. the most willing to put out more labor for the bosses for the least pay). This will drive wages down, not up.

Factors which tend to increase wages include: Slowing entry into particular occupations, as unions do with apprenticeship programs. Shorter workdays and shorter workweeks, i.e. the 40 hour workweek which we enjoy thanks to unions. Low unemployment levels or full employment which make the labor market highly competitive. In all cases, unions, and other things which slow down "productivity" (shorter workweeks, strong environmental and workplace safety regulations, low unemployment or full employment, and zero or low population growth are all good examples), shift the supply curve of the labor market and drive wages up.

The ready availability of people willing to be more "productive" drives wages down, not up.

Your friend's thinking isn't just mistaken, it's completely backwards.

[Touchdown]

49. United we bargain. Divided we beg.

Simple enough?

[brook]

50. The short of it-

When I had a union job, I made $29-30 per hour; 1 1/2 over 8 and dble time after 12hrs.; had retirement & health benefits. Today, as an "at will" employee, I make $7.50 p/h, no benefits - and am treated as if I'd left my brain out in the rain. My age dictates that I hang in there but I came home today shaking with anger after spending some 'quality time' with my benevolent boss.

[leftofthedial]

51. your friend is an idiot

union wages have always been higher than non-union wages

nothing about union wages is "indexed" to the least productive worker. Without a union, she will have zero leverage when negotiating. Corporations do not reward individual productivity. They set wages (lower than union wages would be) for classes of workers. She could become infinitely productive and never be rewarded for it unless the next person up in the food chain decides to help her.

[POAS]

52. In my last union job my wages were tied to productivity

We had (and those still there continue to have) a "piece work" pay rate. It was a plan negotiated by the union and is a very good for both the company and the workers operating the production equipment.

[boolean]

54. Tell her to switch majors...

Because an economist she is not.

[ismnotwasm]

55. I work as a nurse in a union

We vote tomorrow on our contract as a matter of fact. I've also worked as a nurse in a non-union position, both as a LPN and a RN. What I noticed is while the non-union job attempted to keep up with wages in a competitive manner, any slight advantage was lost when benefits got cut. And that happens when they felt like it. So When insurance benefits were cut, the wage didn't make up for it. When holiday pay got cut, the wages didn't make up for it. When vacation hours got cut the wages didn't make up for it.There was no support during disciplinary action. There was little scheduling flexibility. Even though there was no mandatory overtime (thank the unions!)We we held by our license to provide care, and complete documentation in sometimes atrocious working conditions. Many nurses worked "off the clock" technically illegal, but management would look the other way if the work was getting done. I could go on...

So I work now with representation. I hear nurses complain about union dues. I tell them the cost is so much higher without representation. I get decent wage increases. I have insurance options I can live with. I have flexible scheduling. I have a voice and I have representation to make sure that voice is heard. I don't know if any of that helps your argument, but I know what it's like from both sides of the fence. I'm a very proud union member today, and will take great pride and pleasure voting on a contract negotiated with my welfare, and the welfare of my patients in mind tomorrow.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. If "productivity" were the test, the bosses would be unemployed.

Having worked in for one of the largest employers in the nation, the USPS, as a "worker" and in various management positions, I can guarantee anyone that most in "management" are a helluva lot more concerned about promoting themselves on the the backs of the workers than being concerned about their own "productivity".

Beyond that, "productivity" is a Social Darwinist way of guaging worth. Some people, because of their physical or mental abilities, are naturally more "productive". Others, lacking those natural endowments, or having had them injured or deteriorated through age, are less "productive". It's a sort of "only the strong survive" measure of worth.

The Unions, with all of their many faults, at least provide for some protection for the less able among us.

[B Calm]

57. In a non union workplace it's not how hard you work, or if you have

a perfect attendance, or make any mistakes, etc. etc. that determines what kind of raise you'll get! It's how much you can SUCK UP to your boss!

[Nye Bevan]

60. There is not necessarily a conflict between unions and merit-based pay

Take professional baseball as an example. The players have a very powerful union that ensures that the owners abide by contracts they have agreed to, represents the players in grievances, and generally looks out for the interest of their members. However, the best players get paid many times more than the worst players, so despite the existence of an effective union the wages are certainly not "tied to the lowest common denominator".

I know that this is a bit of an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point that unions can be effective without automatically opposing the concept of merit-based pay.

[meganmonkey]

61. The whole concept of a union (in general, and in relation to labor)

Is that it isn't about her. It is about everyone involved. Her analysis is based on the idea that some people deserve better than others, and that $$$ is more important than people. It's the same (erroneous, imo) argument that is made to justify CEOs making 500 times what the average worker does. On a theoretical level it can be justified, but in reality it comes down to this: Is capital more important than labor? No - not in a fair economy.

I can't speculate in relation to her specific situation, but you are likely right that if she started demanding more money (if there were no union) they would find someone who would work cheaper. Not to mention any other benefits she may get which she is much less likely to receive in that type of job without a union...

[China_cat]

62. If her arguments were correct

then, with a union, waitstaff and others who depend on tips would never be allowed to take them.

Our union represents waitstaff, hairdressers, etc. The contract covers the basic wage they will be paid, hourly compensation for overtime, benefits, and safety. This is the same for all employees. But a waiter who is pleasant, attentive (read 'productive') will make up more in tips than one who isn't and the union is not going to even try to cover that compensation.

Maybe it needs to be that simple to get through to your friend.

[ComerPerro]

63. She is an idiot if she thinks that retail ties your wage

to your level of productivity.

She is just a naive moron.

The first year or two of Business school or Econ courses are spent brainwashing the students to embrace the "free" market, the way it is practiced in the US.


And, of course, she sounds like a freeper anyway, since she is really good at scapegoating.


"I'd make much more money if it weren't for those damn slower workers"

[Jcrowley]

66. Agree with her

Tell her she's right in the fact that we shouldn't need unions we should have employers that pay fairly, treat the workers with dignity and provide health care. Then remind her that we have a system that promotes greed and squeezing every drop of blood out of the wage-slaves so unions are essential until the day that we work in collective arrangements.

Wages are tied mostly to the level of education one receives, has available, and that has a dircet correspondence to the social class one is born into. She has internalized the logic of Empire and the oppressor. Good luck with that.

[earth mom]

69. Tell her that without the Union-she'd be making half what she's making now

and not only that, but with no benefits and no job security at all. It always amazes me when people kick Unions in the teeth, yet they are the first to expect the world on a platter from them! :eyes: