Friday, November 23, 2012

Can Unions Help the USA Compete?

As we have been discussing, there are different views regarding the Pros and Cons of Employee Unions in America.

G2A Power to the People?

For the most part, I see them as entities that promote waste and inefficiency, however I am willing to try and determine if they in some ways can help the USA to be more competitve.  Or if they can improve the standard of living for all Americans, not just the employees that are in the Union.

Here are some potential benefits:
  • A wage premium is additional money that can be spent in the community.  Poor folk don't buy many consumer goods and services.
  • Some Managers/Owners can be excessively short sighted and greedy, contracts may ensure they stop and think before acting.
  • Smart companies ensure profits are shared with their employees, however some encouragement may be helpful with those that are not too smart.
  • Others?
Veracity Stew Graphic
WP If America Loses Unions

Remember my favorite saying about Unions.  "If you have a Union, you or your predecessor probably did something to deserve it."

Thoughts?

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think unions are dying in this country. But the function they served, to give working people a voice in the economic affairs in this country is very much needed. If they don't have that, we will see a continued decline in the fortunes of the middle class, and given our history, there is no reason at all to think that decline will contribute to overall prosperity.

--Hiram

John said...

Is there anyway that Unions could shift from their seniority based model to a performance based model?

Helping the employees to have a common voice is likely a good thing, since there are bad companies, managers, owners, etc.

However I am wondering how we can keep the benefits and eliminate the wastes?

I am concerned that unless more of us get back to a Buy American mind set, it is going to be hard to recover a strong middle class no matter what we do. The idea of a vibrant well paying "service economy" seems unrealistic. There just isn't enough "value add" to justify paying people well.

Where as designing, developing & building have a much higher value add. (ie wealth creation)

Anonymous said...

It doesn't really matter what unions shift to. They are dying.

--Hiram

John said...

One of the blessings of our society is that we usually work to eliminate waste. Unions in the Private Sector can easily be reborn if they learned how to help businesses, instead of working to bankrupt them.

And I don't see any signs of the Public Unions weakening. But maybe I am missing something.

Anonymous said...

No, businesses will fight unions and they will do it successfully no matter what agenda the unions claim.

As for public unions, they were certainly attacked successfully in Wisconsin. And their influence is waning everywhere.

--Hiram

John said...

If you are correct, I won't be sad.

So you see no way for Unions to make America more competitive?

Businesses support things that help their bottom line.

Anonymous said...


So you see no way for Unions to make America more competitive?

Sure. Shift the burden of America's health care and pension costs away from business.

--Hiram

John said...

Not sure if that will help or hurt. Someone still has to pay for them, and it may cost them more if it is done less effectively. (ie more waste, more free loaders, etc)

I keep thinking companies would appreciate a source of excellent employees. The Union could do this if they could shift from the years/degrees model to something directly related to on going performance.

Kind of like an agent for professional talent.

John said...

Of course to do this, the Union would have to take responsibility for policing their own ranks. They would have to demand excellence equal to or better than the employer can get without them.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to what I thought was an interesting article from the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/skills-dont-pay-the-bills.html?hp

Personally, I think employers and American business are looking for excuses for their refusal to thrive.

--Hiram

John said...

NYT Skills Don't Pay Bills Interesting article.

I assume you mean by thrive, pay employees more so there is no profit margin. Or raise prices so they lose their customers to foreign competion. It is quite the choice to make.

This is why I keep saying it starts with the American consumers. If they demand locally developed and manufactured goods, and are willing to pay more for them, then companies can pay more.

If that doesn't happen, the best value wins which keeps prices and wages low. This seems to be what Americans want, they vote everyday with their wallet.

Now get out that wallet and go buy a GM or Ford product!!! Forbes GM I seriously want to replace my 11 year old Suburban with a shiny new one, but it looks like I'll be spending that money on taxes (Obamacare & Others) instead...

Anonymous said...

By thrive, I mean grow. In terms of consumers, I think that's just another way business let's itself off the hook. You can't blame the customer, or at least it's pointless if you do.

I have no particular in interest in keeping wages low. The problem I have with the 47 percent who don't pay federal income taxes isn't that they are lazy, it's that they are not paid enough.

--Hiram

John said...

How does raising wages help a company to grow?

I guess I am not blaming the consumers (ie American citizens), I am just making the point that they buy what they perceive as the best value. They base this on low cost, high quality, good features, trendy, etc.

No where in their value assessment do they seem concerned about how their purchase impacts the American worker's income level. Until they do, the incomes will stay competitively low with the low cost country manufacturers and companies that strive to keep employing mostly Americans will likely continue to struggle financially.

Anonymous said...

Private sector unions long ago outlived their usefulness, about the time they started paying union leaders rather than banding together to ensure good working conditions. Public sector unions shouldn't exist.

US unions have an adversarial relationship with management and therefore are harmful to the success of the business. They are also unnecessary because the free market in labor exists and unions pervert that market. A company that mistreats its employees with either working conditions or pay, compared to its competitors for those workers, will have to improve how it treats employees to keep them working, and failure to do so will put them out of business.

J. Ewing

John said...

I find it hard to find the value in Unions, but am willing to consider it.

I somewhat agree with Hiram that having ~50% of the population working low wage service jobs bodes poorly for America. And there won't be much pressure to raise those wages until the wages in low cost countries increase. Or at least as long as American prefer the "high value" stuff. And that could be generations from now, if ever.

Or maybe the std of living will continue dropping until we are closer to theirs... Then it will be easier to compete. Capitalism, the great equalizer?

Anonymous said...

I find it hard to find the value in Unions, but am willing to consider it.

Unions work to raise the wages and benefits of workers. That's their value and that's why business fights them so fiercely.

--Hiram

John said...

Maybe... Or the businesses are fighting waste in an effort to stay alive.

In the old days, union employees were big supporters of Buy American. This was putting their money where their mouth was. Where as I don't see that anymore. Especially from those in the public employee unions, so much for solidarity...

Anonymous said...

Or the businesses are fighting waste in an effort to stay alive.

Managers seem to view money paid to workers as wasteful. Just as workers seem to view money paid to managers as wasteful. This leads to a wash, that doesn't really get us anywhere.

--Hiram

John said...

I agree there is waste on both ends and in the middle.

Waste to me is pretty simple = Paying more than needed to get work done and achieve desired result.

Easier measure with simpler jobs and systems.

Worst waste is doing something well that does not need to be done. (Ie caboose)

Anonymous said...

"I somewhat agree with Hiram that having ~50% of the population working low wage service jobs bodes poorly for America." - John

I think you have two problems mixed together here, but maybe not. I am not concerned with the fact that well over half of the US economy is service-based. Even in a manufacturing business, the service component is usually the most profitable. But when you say, "low-wage service jobs" you are simply pointing out the fact that some jobs cannot be outsourced – the food service industry being a prime example. What you want to do here is to ask WHY the only jobs left are in industries that cannot be moved offshore and the only reasonable conclusion is that unions have demanded and received wages and benefits above and beyond their productivity, forcing manufacturing industries (and even some services) into countries with lower regulation, lower taxes and, almost incidentally, lower labor costs.

Like it or not there is a free market in labor and it crosses borders. Unions attempt to coerce from a business wages that are noncompetitive in that market and thus "go out of business" by killing the industries they are parasitic to.

J. Ewing

John said...

So you want our country to become just like China? That would be depressing, I like my big house, big yard and clean air... Apartment living and filthy waterways don't call to me.

I think Germany does pretty well, but I think their citizens are willing to pay a little extra to support their local workers.

I agree that internal waste is bad and needs to be eliminated, but unbridled capitalism has its problems too.

Anonymous said...

I think it is more correct to say that unbridled capitalism HAD its problems, and that the unions helped to "enlighten" the robber barons, back in the day. Henry Ford was the first one (and without a union, as I recall) to recognize the advantage of paying workers enough so that they could eventually afford the products they were building. The only way we become like China is if unions and government combined to drive away enough businesses that there aren't enough jobs to go around. China has the problem of too many workers and too few industries, so wages are depressed. We haven't had that problem in the US in a long time but I fear we are headed in that direction if we don't get unions and government under control.

J. Ewing