Scott,
Let's take an objective look at the bigger picture. Name-calling and stereotyping is seldom productive to intelligent debate.
In our nation's past (post-Civil War to WWII timeframe), the rise of organized labor played a prominent and intricate role in bringing about improvements in the quality of life of the American worker (via shortened work days and work weeks, higher wages, safer places of work, etc.). It is well documented that working conditions prior to widespread unionization were, generally-speaking, very poor. The individual employee had little (if any) voice, rights, recourse, etc. The influence of unions, over many decades, contributed to the changes (legislative and otherwise) that helped make life for the average factory worker better (remember, this is back when a much higher percentage of American works worked in a factory environment).
Over the last several decades, many trends have been observed. Capitalism, with one of its central foci being 'an eye on the bottom line', encourages business leaders to seek out ways to maximize profits. One easy way to reduce operating costs--and thereby boost profit--is to lower the costs to produce and distribute goods (i.e. cut labor-related expenses).
Initially, there was a migration of manufacturing jobs from the Northeast and upper Midwest to points south (where the labor was cheaper).
As our capitalistic style of economy (still the strongest and most viable model when compared to the rest of the world) spread throughout to other nations, as the ability to transport people and things the world over improved, and as politics allowed (or at least did not overly obstruct) domestic companies to move manufacturing facilities developing countries, where labor was/is cheaper, there began the exodus of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. And, consequently, the backbone of our domestic economy began to shift from manufacturing to service.
This is not to say that there are not still many millions of people employed in the U.S. doing some type of manufacturing job, clearly they are. Nor is this simplistic brush at this multifactoral issue intended to be comprehensive--it is well beyond the scope of my understanding and the context of this post (and the forum as a whole).
However, with the 'demography' of the U.S. job landscape now substantially different from when unions were at their peak (in terms of utility, about 100 years ago; and in terms of membership, several decades ago), and the average working conditions now, collectively, far superior to what they were many years ago, I submit that unions are simply obsolete.
American businesses and American workers, by and large, have arrived at this same conclusion. This is reflected in the continued decline in the number and percentage union workers over the last several decades.
It is a widely-held, and not unsubstantiated belief that unions persist today only due to long-standing affiliations with local, state and national politics. Politicians running in tight races can 'win' union voters by making promises to be union-friendly with their policies (a larger and sufficiently separate subject I will neither offer comment on nor delve into to deeply here). Though I will say that politicians who think that union workers would vote solely on what that person's policies would be towards unions, and ignore any/all other pertinent issues seems not only short-sighted but rather condescending and insulting, but I digress.
To summarize, unions today run countercurrent to capitalism and hurt our economy. I will provide two brief examples that illustrate this:
1. Let's say that a tradeshow organization wants to put on a tradeshow . . . With a non-union labor force, they could hire a company that would transport the displays to the site, unload, erect, and ultimately dismantle and haul them away when the show is over.
If they were to use union labor, they would need to coordinate between several different unions (one to load the displays onto the trucks, another to drive the trucks to the site, another to off-load, another to set up--and, if you are lucky, tear down, and one to reload the trucks, etc.).
What labor scenario do you think will cost more and take more time (and be more of a hassle for those putting on the tradeshow)?
Who do you think these additional labor-related costs get passed on to? My suspicion is that the consumer ends up footing the bill for a product that, at best, is no different/better and takes longer and costs more to 'produce'.
This story is a factual account, by the way.
2. Here's an example that is in the news today . . . The big 3 are clamoring for a federal bailout.
GM, Ford and Chrysler are losing money and market share (and have been for years). On the contrary, Honda, Toyota and Nissan are not.
A chief difference between the big 3 and the three foreign companies (mind you, they all have manufacturing plants in the U.S.) is that the big 3, who employ uaw members have a much more expensive labor force than the non-union foreign carmakers. Specifically, the uaw workers 'cost' their employers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) twice that of the other aforementioned companies. So, assuming all else is equal, is it any mystery why the companies who have labor costs that are twice that of their competition are getting drummed?
Call me old-fashioned, but I strongly believe that a worker, in any industry, at any level, doing any particular job, should be able to stand on his own merit. If more/all of our workers in the U.S. were not unionized, we would be in a better economic position as a nation.
If you do not believe me, try asking Mssrs. Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally (off the record, of course) how they honestly feel about having to try and run their companies against competitors who produce an equal or better product for half the cost. Then ask yourself the question again, are unions still what is best for our country?
Let's take an objective look at the bigger picture. Name-calling and stereotyping is seldom productive to intelligent debate.
In our nation's past (post-Civil War to WWII timeframe), the rise of organized labor played a prominent and intricate role in bringing about improvements in the quality of life of the American worker (via shortened work days and work weeks, higher wages, safer places of work, etc.). It is well documented that working conditions prior to widespread unionization were, generally-speaking, very poor. The individual employee had little (if any) voice, rights, recourse, etc. The influence of unions, over many decades, contributed to the changes (legislative and otherwise) that helped make life for the average factory worker better (remember, this is back when a much higher percentage of American works worked in a factory environment).
Over the last several decades, many trends have been observed. Capitalism, with one of its central foci being 'an eye on the bottom line', encourages business leaders to seek out ways to maximize profits. One easy way to reduce operating costs--and thereby boost profit--is to lower the costs to produce and distribute goods (i.e. cut labor-related expenses).
Initially, there was a migration of manufacturing jobs from the Northeast and upper Midwest to points south (where the labor was cheaper).
As our capitalistic style of economy (still the strongest and most viable model when compared to the rest of the world) spread throughout to other nations, as the ability to transport people and things the world over improved, and as politics allowed (or at least did not overly obstruct) domestic companies to move manufacturing facilities developing countries, where labor was/is cheaper, there began the exodus of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. And, consequently, the backbone of our domestic economy began to shift from manufacturing to service.
This is not to say that there are not still many millions of people employed in the U.S. doing some type of manufacturing job, clearly they are. Nor is this simplistic brush at this multifactoral issue intended to be comprehensive--it is well beyond the scope of my understanding and the context of this post (and the forum as a whole).
However, with the 'demography' of the U.S. job landscape now substantially different from when unions were at their peak (in terms of utility, about 100 years ago; and in terms of membership, several decades ago), and the average working conditions now, collectively, far superior to what they were many years ago, I submit that unions are simply obsolete.
American businesses and American workers, by and large, have arrived at this same conclusion. This is reflected in the continued decline in the number and percentage union workers over the last several decades.
It is a widely-held, and not unsubstantiated belief that unions persist today only due to long-standing affiliations with local, state and national politics. Politicians running in tight races can 'win' union voters by making promises to be union-friendly with their policies (a larger and sufficiently separate subject I will neither offer comment on nor delve into to deeply here). Though I will say that politicians who think that union workers would vote solely on what that person's policies would be towards unions, and ignore any/all other pertinent issues seems not only short-sighted but rather condescending and insulting, but I digress.
To summarize, unions today run countercurrent to capitalism and hurt our economy. I will provide two brief examples that illustrate this:
1. Let's say that a tradeshow organization wants to put on a tradeshow . . . With a non-union labor force, they could hire a company that would transport the displays to the site, unload, erect, and ultimately dismantle and haul them away when the show is over.
If they were to use union labor, they would need to coordinate between several different unions (one to load the displays onto the trucks, another to drive the trucks to the site, another to off-load, another to set up--and, if you are lucky, tear down, and one to reload the trucks, etc.).
What labor scenario do you think will cost more and take more time (and be more of a hassle for those putting on the tradeshow)?
Who do you think these additional labor-related costs get passed on to? My suspicion is that the consumer ends up footing the bill for a product that, at best, is no different/better and takes longer and costs more to 'produce'.
This story is a factual account, by the way.
2. Here's an example that is in the news today . . . The big 3 are clamoring for a federal bailout.
GM, Ford and Chrysler are losing money and market share (and have been for years). On the contrary, Honda, Toyota and Nissan are not.
A chief difference between the big 3 and the three foreign companies (mind you, they all have manufacturing plants in the U.S.) is that the big 3, who employ uaw members have a much more expensive labor force than the non-union foreign carmakers. Specifically, the uaw workers 'cost' their employers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) twice that of the other aforementioned companies. So, assuming all else is equal, is it any mystery why the companies who have labor costs that are twice that of their competition are getting drummed?
Call me old-fashioned, but I strongly believe that a worker, in any industry, at any level, doing any particular job, should be able to stand on his own merit. If more/all of our workers in the U.S. were not unionized, we would be in a better economic position as a nation.
If you do not believe me, try asking Mssrs. Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally (off the record, of course) how they honestly feel about having to try and run their companies against competitors who produce an equal or better product for half the cost. Then ask yourself the question again, are unions still what is best for our country?
