Shots Across The Bow

Look, there may be some unions out there that are needed and do good work. In fact, I'd bet on it. I know my ex wife's ex-father-in-law, a man I deeply respect, is a life-long union man. And it could be that the two unions I've had personal contact with are not representative of the whole bunch. But man, these yahoos in NYC sure make it hard for me to take unions seriously.

What do you think unions exist for? It's not a social club, ya know..

Posted by: Chris Wage on December 20, 2005 8:03 PM

In my experience working with two different unions, unions exist for the benefit of the worker, to the detriment of the company as a whole. As we're seeing in NYC right now, many if not most unions look only at the short term benefit to their members, without regard to the long term health of their company. This is one of the reasons why so many companies are choosing to outsource labor to other countries; the American union worker is pricing himself out of the job market. While the typical liberal response is to try and regulate job outsourcing, leading to less productivity and efficiency, the better response is to control labor costs to keep them more in line with the global market.

At one time, unions were needed to balance the power of the owners, who colluded together to fix wages at an unaturally low level. Working conditions were terrible in many industries, and workers had no choice but to work under those conditions or starve. And the market response was inevitable; workers chose to starve, ie risk their jobs by organizing, rather than continue to work under those conditions.

But now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The Transit workers are not striking over starvation wages or unsafe working conditions; they're striking to increase a benefit package that exceeds that of most city workers, and they're doing so in spite of clear evidence that their demands will bankrupt the system.

How is this good for anybody? I pointed out the numbers in the post, Chris. How do you justify this strike, based on the facts? Unless you have information I haven't seen, (And if you do, present it by all means. Show me how the MTA is mistreating these workers.) this is a case of greed and ambition run amok.

While I'm on the subject, there's another problem with unions, one that is inescapable, even with the best intentions in the world. The presense of a union automaticaly creates an adversarial relationship between labor and management. Modern leadership and management practices work best in a team environment. Management from the bottom up results in greater productivity, increased innovation, and higher corporate morale. The presense of a union makes this knd of corporate culture nearly impossible to achieve. As an example, look at Ben And Jerry's, the epitome of a corporate structure that values the employee. When maintenance workers in one plant tried to unionize, Ben and Jerry's filed suit to stop them.

Why is that, do you think?

So to answer your question, Chris, no, I didn't ever think unions were social clubs. I do think that in most cases, they've outlived their usefulness, and in my direct experience, do more harm than good.

Posted by: rich on December 21, 2005 1:46 AM

BTW I posted something in a little more detail about my thoughts on this.

But on to your response:

But now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The Transit workers are not striking over starvation wages or unsafe working conditions; they're striking to increase a benefit package that exceeds that of most city workers, and they're doing so in spite of clear evidence that their demands will bankrupt the system.

How is this good for anybody? I pointed out the numbers in the post, Chris. How do you justify this strike, based on the facts? Unless you have information I haven't seen, (And if you do, present it by all means. Show me how the MTA is mistreating these workers.) this is a case of greed and ambition run amok.

First, safety is, in fact, an issue in this strike -- not only of the workers but of the riders (reference in my post).

Second, since when is starvation the only threshold we've determined is avoidable? I mean, with that statement you're basically affirming Marx's tenet that the ultimate realization of capitalism is paying the laborer just enough to keep him alive.

The workers are not fighting for plush lifestyles, they're fighting for safety and a reasonable living wage, as pointed out here. That other city employees are working for less is hardly relevant. They are either earning what they've deemed acceptable or they've made unfortunate concessions themselves.

Third, as for bankrupting the system, well, from what I understand the MTA is currently sitting on a $1+bil surplus -- gained thanks in part to a gross misrepresentation of nonexistent financial difficulties in the 2003 negotiations and subsequent concession (and rate hike).

If you think the system is going to be bankrupted, think again. Large union strikes are largely in opposition to any organization in any real danger of bankruptcy.

While I'm on the subject, there's another problem with unions, one that is inescapable, even with the best intentions in the world. The presense of a union automaticaly creates an adversarial relationship between labor and management. Modern leadership and management practices work best in a team environment. Management from the bottom up results in greater productivity, increased innovation, and higher corporate morale. The presense of a union makes this knd of corporate culture nearly impossible to achieve. As an example, look at Ben And Jerry's, the epitome of a corporate structure that values the employee. When maintenance workers in one plant tried to unionize, Ben and Jerry's filed suit to stop them.

Why is that, do you think?

Probably because Ben and Jerry's is run by a board of directors out to look after their bottom line like any other publicly traded company? I mean, what, did you think you were appealing to some secret liberal hippie code of honor by bringing up B&J's? :)

Anyways, I disagree with your premise. Unions didn't create an adversarial relationship between labor and management. Capitalism did. To be specific, the managerial tier of labor was created specifically as a surrogate for relations with labor by capital.

Galbraith talks about this in the context of his observation of the decline of the social relevance of wealth in general in The Affluent Society:

As recently as the nineteen-twenties, the power of the great business firm was paramount in the United States and the firm, in turn, was the personification of the individual who headed it. Men like Morgan, the Rockefeller executives, Hill, Harriman and Hearst had great power in the meaningful sense of the term, which is to say that they were able to direct the actions and command the obedience of countless other individuals.

In the last seventy-five years, the power and prestige of the United States government have increased. If only by the process of dividion, this diminished the prestige of the power accruing to private wealth. But, in addition, it also meant some surrender of authority to Washington. Furthermore, trade unions invaded the power of the entrepeneur from another quarter. But most important, the professional manager or executive took away from the man of wealth the power that is implicit in running a business. Seventy-five years ago Morgan, Rockefeller, Hill, Harriman and the others were the undisputed masters of the business concerns they owned, or it was indisputably in their power to become so. Their sons and grandsons still have the wealth, but with rare exceptions the power implicit in the running of the firm has passed to professionals.

Galbraith elaborates on this in "The New Industrial State", where he talks about "the technostructure". Anyways, a long-winded quote (sorry) to make a simple point that the managerial class has simply evolved as a functional surrogate for the authority of capital. Their function by its very nature is inherently adversarial.

They are The Boss.

Posted by: Chris Wage on December 21, 2005 8:25 PM

First, safety is, in fact, an issue in this strike -- not only of the workers but of the riders (reference in my post).

So, Chris, which of the union's demands address safety concerns, the pension demands or the wage increases? Because quite frankly, I fail to see how either affects safety for the riders or the workers.

How about avoiding the straw men and deal with the questions I raised?

That other city employees are working for less is hardly relevant.

Actually, it's crucial to the argument. First, it shows that the MTA's offer is not out of line with the offers accepted by other city worker unions. Second, one of the concerns of the City is that if the transit workers get a contract that is significantly better than average, the rest of the city's unionized workers will demand comparable contracts down the road.

Third, as for bankrupting the system, well, from what I understand the MTA is currently sitting on a $1+bil surplus

If you look at page 8 of last year's financial report you'll see that while operating revenues brought in $4.8 billion, operating expenses totalled $8 billion. The remainder comes from subsidies, AKA taxes. Given that wages and benefits account for just over $5 billion (pg 32), the $1 billion surplus amounts to about 9 weeks of wages. Hardly an excessive cushion. Even more telling, compared to the long term debt of $19.6 billion, up just under $2 billion last year (pg 31) and suddenly a $1 billion dollar surplus isn't all that exciting anymore. It's just a big number used for emotional effect, and has little to do with the financial solvency of the MTA.

Large union strikes are largely in opposition to any organization in any real danger of bankruptcy.

Translation into english please. The sentence makes no sense.

To be specific, the managerial tier of labor was created specifically as a surrogate for relations with labor by capital.

Surrogacy does not impose adversity, so your point is off the mark. In fact, the most efficient mode of operation is one in which management and labor work together co-operatively, rather than competitively. While management and labor have different objectives, it is possible to achieve both objectives without an adversarial process because life is not a zero sum game. Rather than fighting over a bigger slice of a finite pie, the union paradigm, in the real world it is almost always possible for both sides to get a larger share of an infinite pie. But that requires both sides to work together, something that is imposible in a union environment.

Here's a few real world examples.

1. I caused a strike while in training at the Nuclear Prototype Training Unit in Ballston Spa, NY. While waiting for enough students for the next class to start, I was put on the Sparkle Team. Our job was to clean rooms in the training facility for 12 hours a night. One night, we finished our assigned rooms early, and decided to clean up the copier room, which was a total pig sty. 4 of us spent about 3 hours cleaning a 10x10 room, and by the time we were done, it sparkled. The next morning we were taken off the sparkle team and sent into the training unit to paint walls because the copy room was a union's cleaning responsibility. The union didn't file a grievance, they walked out for 2 days. Never mind that they hadn't cleaned the room in several months. We took they're work, so they staged protest.
Emphasis on staged.

2. An environmental tech needed to take a reading on some sample wells that were overgrown with weeds. She pulled the weeds out of her way to take the readings. Several Yard employees watched her clear the wells, and never said a word.

Until the next day, when they filed a grievance for 6 man hours to cover her 15 minutes of doing their job.

3. There was a rotten smell in my ofice and I called Yard and oput in a work request. They had put out rat poison a couple of days before and it was clear that a rat had died underneath the office trailer. When the yard worker showed up, he looked under the trailer for about 5 minutes, couldn't find anything, and left, even though my office reeked of decay. After he left, I went under the trailer, found the rat in the floor insulation and pulled it out, bagging it to get rid of the smell. I called Yard and let them know. The guy that picked up the bag told me he was going to cut me some slack and not grieve me for doing their work, but that if it happened again, he would have to file.

4. As the time for ontract negotiations came up, the filing of grievances increased dramatically, simply to create leverage for the union. Most of the grievances were spurious and were denied, even when they went all the way to arbitration. One of the shop stewards was very open about the strategy.

5. New hires are placed on 90 days probation before they become permanent. More than one told me that they were having a very difficult time, caught between trying to do their job and senior union members telling them to slow down, and not work so hard, because they were making the rest of the union members look bad.

6. The Food Workers union took over the nurses in a Washington State hospital using deceptive tactics, cutting out the existing nurses union by making false promises and concealing unpleasent facts. As a result, there are nurses now that could be required to strike if bagboys walk out.

I think that's enough. The reason Ben and Jerrys fought unionization is not because they wanted to keep the workers down for the sake of the bottom line (nice stereotyping there, by the way) but because a union atmosphere is incompatible with the corporate culture they try to maintain.

Once again, unions had a time and a place, but it is almost inmpossible to find one today that isn't causing more harm than good.

Posted by: rich on December 22, 2005 3:11 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Security Code:

Remember info?