This, from a retired blog'o'mine, circa 2004.
I think it got read by, let's see - zero people.
==================================
Left Wing Heart, Right wing head
The blessed CBC (damn those, including myself, for putting down Canadian production values; witness the 5th estate, this hour has 22 minutes, air farce, venture) had a great piece on unions last nite. Disclaimer: I've been in, let's see, UFCW, and the CMSG. That would make two. Two in which I saw:
-no point in paying union dues - both ultimately provided no job security
-those WITH work ethics stifled; promotions had to go to those most senior, not those most capable
-those WITHOUT work ethics summarily rewarded through a system that encouraged clock-watching, slowing-for-ot, and generally having expectations of "I'm OWED this, I'm WORTH twenty dollars an hour when I'm baking and bagging frozen bread."
Personal disenchantment aside though, I'm also painfully aware of the astonishing corporate greed that exists out there. Witness the documentary the Corporation, read ZNet, Chomsky, etc. etc.
So how do I reconcile my abhorrence of protected personal recklessness that the union provides, with the fact that the union is one of the last stands against unbridled greed and corporate hegemony?
Maybe by recognizing that this is one of those lesser of two evil things - that the excesses tolerated by unions pale in comparison to those tolerated on a global scale by unchecked and increasingly powerful corporate entitites.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(112)
-
▼
November
(32)
- Goodbye Colin
- 28 - 21
- The first 35
- Good Morning Sunshine
- Namaste
- Islands in the Stream
- Gestalt meets Atman
- Alone together, Into the Sun
- Good Night Chuck
- 1-800-Healthcare Mismanagement, Can I Help You?
- No, you get off of MY property taxes
- Laughter and Limbaugh
- A wrinkle, a sign
- Sallow, what the hell is sallow
- Seems an appropriate post, given the mood of late...
- Choking on this
- Waiter, there's a growth in my free market
- Left Wing Heart, Right wing head (2004)
- Sorry, Mr. Simon
- Production woes
- 1987 kids. 21 years ago. First time I took a son...
- That sounds amazingly bad, doesn't it?
- I Wonder
- What Can I Offer
- The Gaping Maw of Hungry Ghosts
- Wrote this hristmas Theme for Grandma, Ruth, and...
- The Sponge of Self Discovery
- Sorry for the Bottom Dwellers
- You are?
- Leader and the Fool
- Repositorium
- Feed me Seymour
-
▼
November
(32)
6 comments:
Lets start with this:
no point in paying union dues - both ultimately provided no job security
Perfect job security is a goal. There is no union on earth that can provide absolute job security. What unions can do is provide a level of job security not available when unions are not present. For instance, in some non-union workplaces it is common for some employees to lose jobs because their political or religious affiliations conflict with those of their employer. Union dues go to the effort to prevent this from happening. So while union dues may not keep me employed if the company goes bankrupt, the dues may help me stay employed if I have a serious conflict with one of my managers.
-those WITHOUT work ethics summarily rewarded through a system that encouraged clock-watching, slowing-for-ot, and generally having expectations of "I'm OWED this, I'm WORTH twenty dollars an hour when I'm baking and bagging frozen bread
The assumption here is that work ethics is a personality trait that exists primarily because such behavior is rewarded. This is akin to suggesting that people don't steal mostly because of the threat of punishment. Take away the punishment for thievery and most don't thieve in much the same way that removing the carrot for good work doesn't stop most from having pride in what they do.
But in a hypothetical society with no punishments for robbery, some would become crooks. And in a workplace with no rewards for good work, some will choose to watch the clock instead of putting in the effort they know they should.
But this suggests in a non-union workplace that hard work is the only factor that determines success. That is demonstrably untrue. In a fair workplace this may be the case, but it is a lack of fairness in non-union workplaces that largely gave rise to the union movement.
All it takes in a non-union workplace is for a key manager who has biases against women, gays, Latinos, people who talk loudly, Methodists, short people, the bald, those hired by the manager's predecessor or those willing to voice their opinions and a good work ethic loses its relevance.
Point partially digested on job security. I am supportive of the relative support union dues could help the less-enfranchised in a scuffle with management - much like I am theoretically agreeable to Socialized medicine, because it gives the best aggregate care to the average consumer of services, regardless of their class status.
But just as Healthcare needs to be called out on its shortcomings (poor management, political decision making, bad communication with recipients), the union needs to be called out on theirs as well.
They need to be straight forward about what my dues can actually help achieve. They also need to be clear that lower level member rights (new hires brought on under agreements with less wages, hours, benefits and rights than the Seniors who had been on since the store opened)are not the same strength as the older member's rights. Without this disclosure, they are displaying the same character flaws that exist in the business environment they rail against, watering down the story for the new-hires - the less enfranchised - those who their whole system is supposed to be behind.
And onto the second point.
I'm going up and down like a toilet seat in whether to hand you the point or argue in my defense. This is the third try at the comment post, and I have just vacillated back to defense.
While I agree with your point that human ethical behavior can be largely independent of positive or negative Pavlovian proddings, I still assert that the culture - the CONTEXT in which the ethical machinations play out - can have a strong effect.
ie: Bell curve. Left and right side tails - those with malleable ethics - ie: those that can be swayed by culture / environment/ context. Joe Six Pack who will run the straight and narrow most of the time, but will bend the rules when the rules can be bent - will find the darker side of his ethical continuum given lots of fodder to grow in an environment that offers substantial protection against aberrant behavior.
Please note that regardless who wins this parry, I did come up with some really nice alliteration ("positive or negative Pavlovian proddings")
Normally, the last step in union/employer conflict resolution is arbitration. This is a very expensive process involving multiple labor lawyers. But despite paying the price to go through the process, unions often lose their cases.
This is analogous to the results we sometimes receive from our medical system. It hardly matters how much in taxes we pay to support it, the medical system cannot guarantee health. It’s axiomatic to say either system has flaws. But the protection we receive from the money we shell out for both systems has value. The fact that the value isn’t always apparent doesn’t make it worth any less.
As for failing to explain the collective bargaining agreement to new members, I would venture this is a rare occurrence in the trade union movement. Most unions very much desire the participation of new members in union affairs. (Most unions find it difficult to recruit union officers and other to assist in union affairs.) It is also the job of shop stewards to explain the collective bargaining agreement to the new members they are responsible for.
As for longer serving members having more rights, this is usually the case in non-union workplaces as well. It is common practice for employers to reward extended service with benefits. The most common example is vacation time. An employee who has given 10 years of service is normally rewarded with more vacation time than an employee who was hired last week. The difference in a union shop is that these benefits are specifically spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement. The reason for this is that it is not unheard of in non-union workplaces to deny a longtime employee more vacation time because of trivial differences between the employee and their manager.
I agree completely that ethics of any kind of are malleable and I think your use of the bell curve as an analogy is entirely apt. If the work atmosphere is structured in a way that allows unwanted behavior, unwanted behavior to varying degrees will arise.
But the important variable here is the work environment. Just because a work place is union doesn’t mean it is necessarily unproductive. Good employers use the collective bargaining agreement to ensure the workplace promotes good work ethics. If the reverse is true, then the bargaining team for the employer has failed to do its job. Whatever benefits or wages the employer concedes to the union, the first job is to ensure a productive work place. Blaming an unproductive work place on the union assumes the employer had no say in the bargaining process.
Employers negotiate with suppliers, landlords, telecom suppliers - you name it. They also negotiate with labour. The better employers do at negotiating, the better chance they have of prospering.
Admittedly noteworthy examples of alliteration aside, the inability to see trade unionism in a wider context seems a trifle narcissistic to me. But if that is your thing, I think this post might shed a little more light on that concept:
http://feedthenoosphere.blogspot.com/2008/11/alone-together-into-sun_22.html
Here's the thing. Free markets are, in theory, a good architecture to support democracies. The problem is that they are not, in a lot of cases, true free markets.
Same thing with unions - in theory, they provide a balancing, a spreading of wealth, an insulating mechanism against the hegemony of monopolies that could otherwise be unchecked.
How they operate and present in reality, however, can be quite different.
My point of reference for argument on this fact is admittedly anecdotal, but not, I think, without merit.
What I observed was that unions actually had a class structure of their own, the very thing that they railed against. To wit:
-Upper Class - Senior union leadership, who would speak out of both sides of their mouths, waving the union banner in one hand, and negotiating behind closed doors for goodies that were NOT universally passed down through the ranks on the other hand. Also partakers of benefits (exorbitant hotels and expenses) that were more akin to their capitalist counterparts than the rank-and-file working men and women they were supposed to be representing.
-Upper middle class - union reps up the food chain, who enjoyed member-sponsored junkets for conventions, national meetings etc. Yes those things are necessary, but not for the exorbitant amounts they spent on the member's bill.
-Middle class - union workers with seniority, who were full in the game when their status's were threatened, but jes' fine not stepping up to the plate when a half-time lower wage brother in arms was having his hours slashed
-Lower class - the new kids on the block. Missed the $20/hr full time agreement; get by on 0-20 hrs at $13 / hr; much less rights than a senior member
I am not suggesting that these were universal norms, but more the case than the exception.
And as with other things we've argued, however unrealistic or naive it is, I would have much less issue with their actions if they were transparent about them.
I hold no illusions that this will change; what it all boils down to at the end of the day is hypocrisy, which I have a real problem with.
Except for sometimes.
Upper Class anything generally work hard to protect their privileged status. This is a phenomenon not unique to unions.
Unions are and outgrowth of the human condition. Unionism is simply the result of a demand created in industrial societies. Since workers are able to secure more money, fairer working conditions and safer workplaces if they bargain collectively, that’s exactly what they attempt to do.
Notice the use of the verb “attempt”. I will again point out that collective bargaining has an important bargaining component. No contract is ever signed without the input of both unions and employers. Yet when problems of the kind you mention are brought up, it is common to blame unions. This hardly makes any sense. There are two parties, both are equally responsible for what goes on in the workplace. (I would argue that generally, the employer still has more responsibility. There are very few situations when unions come to a bargaining table with as much power as the employer.)
There is a thought in societies where worker rights have long been established that unions have outgrown their usefulness. Thus it makes sense to legislate against them so companies are no longer saddled by their cost. This theory assumes that employers won’t save money by dropping health and safety standards. This theory also assumes that managers will refrain from acting on any racial, cultural or religious biases they might have. It may be the managers you’ve had are fair and broad thinking. So you might feel comfortable extrapolating that experience to managers everywhere. You’ll excuse me if I remain skeptical.
As for union officials getting perks other members don’t have, this might be a problem in some unions. In fact there is a long history of unions being taken to the cleaners by their officials. Union locals are generally not that professional in terms of office practices. Remember, these people don’t do the job full time. They are elected into official roles for a few years at a time. But take a look at what they do. Most work their jobs full-time and then attend to union business. And that is often a full-time job - which they are not paid for. Their big reward is to go to the occasional conference where they get to stay at the Ramada and eat at Chili’s every night.
And what’s the beef about new hires not having the same benefits as longer hires? A coveted shift is open. Should the lady who has been working 7 years on the swing shift get it, or should the guy who was hired last April get it?
In any case, I think you have your thinking backwards on this. If unions had their way, everyone would get full pay, full benefits and full protection from the moment they were hired. Employers are always opposed to this as it will cost them more money and give them less flexibility. If you want to blame someone for this state of affairs, blame the party that advocates the existence of such a system (the employer), not the party that faithfully bargains to diminish it effects.
Post a Comment