How about Congress not get involved in setting wages or compensation between a private employer and its employees at all? *That* would be the bill I would support.

GWB on April 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Amen. And not just Congress, but the Indiana legislature as well.

On the other hand, the employer is limited as to what they will do for their employees. If I want more services from a company I’m doing business with, I expect to pay extra for those services. So then why wouldn’t an employee expect more for their services beyond the norm?

Either you work for someone with a contract, or you work for yourself. They’re actually the same thing when you get down to it.

The problem with many unions is that the unionized employee has to answer to two masters, and both are tying to squeeze as much as possible out of them and give a minimum in return.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 18, 2012 at 11:09 PM

You have just beautifully stated the negative, triangulating union position.

In a non-union environment, those who give more to the job — and accomplish more – do get greater rewards. Your question has its answer in the common dynamic between the employer and his best employees.

Employers are anxious to keep the most productive employees, and they increase salaries, pay bonuses, and groom people for promotion based on initiative and performance — when they have the option to.

The view of employers as always trying to gouge the most work for the least pay out of employees is the pessimism pig dressed up in the cheap cosmetics of Marxism. It is predicated on a static work environment in which it may, for five minutes, be possible to define a “normal” amount of work. But seeking that definition is itself the beginning of sclerosis, and a business and its workplaces will, inevitably, become non-competitive if they give rule over their activities to a definition of “normal.”

There is a gigantic space between “normal” and “worker abuse,” and that space is where all ingenuity, initiative, success, progress, enjoyment, expansion, profit, and the realization of dreams come about. None of those are possible with a rigidly defined, rigidly enforced “normal.” You can focus on not wanting to do one minute’s worth of “extra” work without guarantees, or you can take a risk and change your life, and very possible the world. You can’t have both. The effect of unions is to enforce the former pattern.

Everyone in my family has worked with unionized labor at some point, and the verdict is unanimous: union workers tend to live down to the carefully defined job descriptions they are assigned to.

J.E. Dyer on April 18, 2012 at 9:08 PM

On the other hand, the employer is limited as to what they will do for their employees. If I want more services from a company I’m doing business with, I expect to pay extra for those services. So then why wouldn’t an employee expect more for their services beyond the norm?

Either you work for someone with a contract, or you work for yourself. They’re actually the same thing when you get down to it.

The problem with many unions is that the unionized employee has to answer to two masters, and both are tying to squeeze as much as possible out of them and give a minimum in return.

Yeah, it’s really a hoot for some union people that are in IT, where change is a constant. These types want everything to remain the same!

Another frequent refrain is “I’m not trained to do that!” – pfffft, 95% of what I do very successfully I’ve never been formally trained on.

E-R

electric-rascal on April 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Amen. My brother is an electrical engineer who worked for a major international IT company for about three years. He left when he saw that they were losing contract after contract to overseas companies that didn’t have to ask the unions’ permission to adjust to the changing industry. The plant where he worked closed down about 6 months later, and the company was sold off in parts to avoid a bankruptcy proceeding.

His opinion was that the work the plant was doing could have been done by about half the employees, and that probably three-quarters of that number would have been worth more than they were paid as union workers, if they had been allowed to get in and kick tail the way they were capable of.

Everyone in my family has worked with unionized labor at some point, and the verdict is unanimous: union workers tend to live down to the carefully defined job descriptions they are assigned to.

J.E. Dyer on April 18, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Yeah, it’s really a hoot for some union people that are in IT, where change is a constant. These types want everything to remain the same!

Another frequent refrain is “I’m not trained to do that!” – pfffft, 95% of what I do very successfully I’ve never been formally trained on.

E-R

I had to join to get the job I have now, and I view the union contract as a LIMIT on how much I can make.

The bulk of my background has been in the private sector, so I’m accustomed to “pay for performance” and working like my job depended on it, which is a foreign notion to many. Some of the union people that I work with are totally devoted to sloth, and that’s compound lazy situation since they are also state government workers.

I work daily, at a fever pace (I’m in the computer/IT/network end of things), while just one or two desks away sit people that are paid to loaf, socialize & gab, read the paper, do crossword puzzles, etc for 50% to 85% of the day, while I work my ballz off.

I set my own pace, and I’m a go-to guy when there is a serious problem and/or something needs to be done right – yes, I’m very good at what I do as I support mission-critical core business servers and network components. I’m severely overworked, as are a few other key people in our shop.

I’ve approached management about having some of these loafers at least do some project-oriented stuff (not much technical, just coordinate resources, set schedules, etc.) that would help me out, but I get no help from management because they are reluctant to deal with them.

When the managers ask these highly-paid fully-qualified mirror foggers to do anything that they aren’t used to doing, or don’t care to do, they run and file a grievance with the union… the managers get tired of fighting these people and the union, so they just let them “float” through the day mostly unmolested.

I’ve been told that our headcount doesn’t permit anyone else to be hired, so I’m pretty much screwed.

—–
Back to the topic: I’m not really in favor of the proposal suggested because the citizens of my state are already paying these lazy sods top dollar, why should the citizens have to pay more to (comparatively) properly compensate me? Someone needs to clean house!!

My hope is that they’ll make my state a “right to work state”, and contributions to the unions will become voluntary, and massively drop and (maybe) the union will dry up and blow away.

Just now looking at my W2… I paid $1137 of union dues in 2011 for the privilege of watching the union contribute my money to politicians and a political party that I totally disagree with.

Sorry for the rant.

E-R

Everyone in my family has worked with unionized labor at some point, and the verdict is unanimous: union workers tend to live down to the carefully defined job descriptions they are assigned to.

Those who would like to show more initiative have to be very careful not to get caught (and often just give up and leave). Why? Because it’s anti-union and a betrayal of your fellow workers to work harder than the standard. It suggests that someone might voluntarily do it — as opposed to the union line, which is that being “made” to work harder than the standard constitutes abuse.

Decision-making is equally discouraged — union supervisors have to be applied to for what seem to be the most minor decisions — and promotion is tied to seniority (as are bennies like overtime opportunities).

I doubt the RAISE Act will change much, as national unions will pressure the companies to refrain from taking advantage of it. The proposed law tries to make a marginal change that can’t stand on its own. But it’s a positive thing that it has gotten traction.

NuclearPhysicist on April 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM

You gonna complain on every thread today?

I disagree that government employees create wealth. Government consumes wealth.

Government activities such as law enforcement, building and maintaining the infrastructure, and minimal regulation of commerce (requiring a level playing field) and education spending allow the private sector to create wealth.

Government cannot create wealth in and of itself.

NuclearPhysicist on April 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I agree with your take on what has happened here, and it has caused me to read the threads much less often.

union = 1. A collection of people headed by goons and thugs organized to extort the maximum possible wages, benefits and pensions for doing the minimum possible amount of actual work. 2. A subsidiary of the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist party that provides hundreds of millions of dollars in mandatory union dues as campaign contributions in payback for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money the d-cRAT socialists funnel to the unions. 3. An entity designed to make any company non-competitive and any state, city or local municipality bankrupt. 4. A collection of people controlled by goons and thugs that are focused on voter intimidation, unless the voter votes for the d-cRAT socialist party. 5. A tool of the d-cRAT socialist party to implement its anti-democracy ideology by preventing workers from having a secret ballot as to whether they want to join a union, and instead subjecting them to what is called “card check” that allows union leader goons and thugs to harass, intimidate and threaten workers to join their union. 6. The d-cRAT socialist party’s version of the Third Reich’s SchutzStaffel (SS) used to violently attack anybody who opposes the will of the unions or the party, as seen in their actions in Wisconsin and elsewhere where there are efforts at fiscal reform, rational governing and support for taxpayers. 7. The current d-cRAT socialist form of SLAVERY in which each person MUST pay dues to their union maters, they MUST be subject to the rules of their union masters and they MUST obey all orders and decrees from their union masters even if they don’t want anything to do with the union. 8. The embodiment of the grand lie / myth of communism that workers are in “paradise” when in collectives (REALTY clearly proves that the only “Workers’ Paradise” is a “Right-to-Work” state).

The only reason unions exist is to keep option A off the table.

I’ve always thought that union workers deserved a Broadened Open Opportunity Training Identifying New Techniques Helping Everyone And Substantial Savings.

TugboatPhil on April 18, 2012 at 4:15 PM

*applause*

Monkeytoe on April 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM

And, a caveat to that – the more Romney moves toward an immigration amnesty, which he appears to be doing – the more I am likely to go back to believing that Romney will be worse for the country long-term. I was just coming around and he has started raising balloons for an amnesty.

How these people believe that will actually win Hispanic votes is beyond me. If we promise some kind of limited amnesty, Obama is going to promise a 100% amnesty. Don’t these people have common sense? We will not increase the Hispanic GOP vote by much, if at all, with this appeasement. And, it is terrible, terrible policy for the U.S.

I remember when Tom was running for Governor of CA against Arrrrnold after the Gray Davis recall…

… A truly good and decent man who had the right plan to right the ship of State, but the political elite ruling class couldn’t have any of THAT.

Now we are Alta California run by the Democrats and the Unions, who’s populace’s loyalty is to Mexico, but they have their hands out to the U.S. taxpayer…

… If the media starts to go after the RAISE act and it’s authors, you know it is the right thing to do.

Seven Percent Solution on April 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I remember having the argument over and over again with people that it was better to keep Davis in office than elect Schwartzenegger as a republican governor. Anyone with common sense knew Arnold would shift left and give CA dems cover for their disastrous policies. This was one of the first times where I actually believed that an electoral defeat was better (long term) than a victory if we weren’t going to go with a solid conservative like McClintock. I’ve actually had the same thoughts regarding Romney. I’ve come around to believing that electing Romney will be marginally better long-term than not defeating Obama. But only just.

The reason? Right now one of the main arguments employers have against unionization is that the productive workers will be harmed because the employer will no longer be able to reward hard work, instead everything rests entirely on seniority.

Now, if you are (or believe you are) a good worker, that is a good argument. But, what if this passes? Then, the union can say to the good worker – hey, we’ll set a high floor for wages and get you big benefits, and make it hard for the employer can’t punish the bad workers (who, after all, are often the good workers friends), but you will still be able to be rewarded above that for your good work!

So, unions will still be harming employers by raising costs and keeping lousy employees employed – but now the main argument for not unionizing is taken away.