Unions Are Probably Dead

[SciFiFisher]

The Supreme Court decided that they hadn't buggered the common working man enough. They have decided to strike down the clause that allowed unions to collect dues from people who didn't want to support the unions political agendas. The practice was called "agency fees" and it allowed the unions to collect dues for union activity that benefited the members such as collective bargaining, union representation at disciplinary meetings, and other non-political activities. This was a pure political move intended to help defund the unions and make union membership even more endangered.

And why do they want to kill unions? Well, it seems that unions tend to have higher wages/benefits than non-union counter-parts. And they tend to endorse Democrats. That second part is enough to get most Republicans on board if they already don't hate the unions for demanding higher wages, safe working conditions, and trying to protect workers.

[Thumper]

Yep. I have a conflicted view of unions. Philosophically, historically, I believe they were absolutely necessary. Are they necessary in today's America? I don't know. My agency voted to unionize 28 years ago or so when I was a part time college intern and did not get to participate in the vote. Personally, I think our specific union is crap. They've never done anything for me, they seemed to hold everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Just one example of hundreds: A guy in our shop gets a written reprimand for repeated tardiness. This guy was never at work on time sometimes coming in over an hour late, taking long breaks and lunches, and slipping out early. He grieves the rep, union investigators descend. They start tracking everybody's coming and going, reporting and listing all the employees that reported in as little as a minute late, left early etc, even if it was unofficially approved by their supervisors. The state acquiesces, rescinds the reprimand, and institutes draconian sign in measures and rigid punishments for everyone. Morale tanks. That kind of thing. Plus, when I was getting harassed and terrorized at work, the perp was actually a union rep. So my only recourse was to grieve my supervisor for a hostile work environment and my tormentor now represents me against the state. Ludicrous.

So I always petitioned each year to get a refund of as much of my "fair share" contributions as possible. I am now listed as an "exempt" employee and not under union representation so I do not pay dues. Which makes me happy. But I certainly realize that workers in many areas of this country and of course the world abroad are in desperate need of representation for safety, workers rights, and collective bargaining. I believe if a shop votes to unionize and you don't want to participate, either pay your minimum fair share for the benefits you get from the union, or move on. If you're looking at a possible job at a union shop, you know that going in. I think the ruling is completely absurd.

[SciFiFisher]

A guy in our shop gets a written reprimand for repeated tardiness. This guy was never at work on time sometimes coming in over an hour late, taking long breaks and lunches, and slipping out early. He grieves the rep, union investigators descend. They start tracking everybody's coming and going, reporting and listing all the employees that reported in as little as a minute late, left early etc, even if it was unofficially approved by their supervisors. The state acquiesces, rescinds the reprimand, and institutes draconian sign in measures and rigid punishments for everyone. Morale tanks. That kind of thing.

Disclaimer: Once upon a time I was a union rep for a nursing union.

This issue comes up a lot in the workplace. It's called disparate treatment. What the union was trying to prove was that management (the state) was treating the bad employee differently than they were treating everyone else. IOW if a lot of people are allowed to be late but only one is punished for it you have disparate treatment. This probably could have been avoided if the bad employees supervisor had written up the employee within the first couple of times he did it and then continued to document it every single time he was late. It's a PIA and most supervisors (including me when I was one) hate being that kind of a dick.

On the surface it looks like the union is protecting a bad employee. In reality the union is forcing management to play by the rules. And the most important reason for that is because if you let management break the rules to punish a bad employee you won't be able to protect the good employees when management decides to punish the good ones unjustly. All the union was asking management to do was follow their own rules and the rules agreed upon in the union contract. They would have been happy to let management punish a bad employee IF the rules are followed. OK, maybe not happy but everyone usually agrees that you can't let the inmates run the asylum if you want good order and discipline.

The draconian measures the state implemented were a total dick move. They make it look like the union is to blame. In reality they probably already had reasonable policies in place and all they had to do was train the supervisors to use them properly and do some quality control measures to make sure people were following the policies in a consistent manner. Nyah! Why do that when you can be a dick and make the union look bad?


I also understand if someone does not agree with a union's political views and endorsements and does not want any of their dues to pay for political activity. But, we had a reasonable solution to that in place. The portion of the dues that were used for politcal activity did not have to be paid by the individual.

[Thumper]

This issue comes up a lot in the workplace. It's called disparate treatment. What the union was trying to prove was that management (the state) was treating the bad employee differently than they were treating everyone else.

I completely get that and I understand. This was but one example. My larger point was that by bringing the union into our agency, it created conflicts and problems where none existed. It's awful out in some of our county outposts. There's just 1 or two supervisors and a bunch of workers. Instead of working together to get their tasks done, the County Managers spend most of their time disciplining employees and trying not to get grievances filed against them. The Highway Techs spend most of their time filing grievances and finding creative ways to get out of work. To a young, idealistic lad, who hoped that performance and merit should dictate promotions and pay, instead of seniority and service time, it was demoralizing And look what I turned into.

I also understand if someone does not agree with a union's political views and endorsements and does not want any of their dues to pay for political activity. But, we had a reasonable solution to that in place. The portion of the dues that were used for politcal activity did not have to be paid by the individual.

Yes we did, I agree.

[Rommie]

I've become increasingly fascinated for some reason by how in the USA when they dislike something the instinctive reaction is not to better it, but to throw it out completely, even if that involves throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I say this because unlike my graduate school counterparts in the USA, I have always been a member of a union in countries where I live abroad as a grad student (even though currently in Canada we are covered by the steelworkers union- never figured that one out!). Cost of living in Toronto is very high compared to what students are paid, and all recent raises were negotiated by the union, and the same goes for maternity leave being paid instead of unpaid (just negotiated a month ago). In Holland, I retroactively once got a check for a few hundred Euros, because the union had negotiated better PhD pay for the year. Some of the union reps suck, and some definitely take advantage of the whole "if you have a day where you have to do union work it counts as a normal day of work" thing, but for all the bad I have never, ever heard of someone saying they don't want to be in it or pay dues etc, because you sure as hell get more out of it than what you put in.

Meanwhile, in the USA one definitely hears all these union horror stories I've never heard abroad, and a lot of "we should get rid of them" talk. Which makes me wonder if they're really that much worse in the USA, or just it's very good propaganda.

Note, this isn't me wondering whether someone should feel obliged to be in a union- my instinct is that one shouldn't feel obliged, because a good enough union should have people wanting to be in it, etc. (But then, a company/university shouldn't be able to interfere with unionization as many do, which of course happens, so one has to take that reality into account.) I guess it's more just that the USA has a history of labor movements, and it's amazing how much it's been forgotten- literally forgotten in many cases, btw, as I'm pretty sure most people no longer know what "solidarity" means as a concept or a raised fist. Just a little weird.

[SciFi Chick]

Not to derail, but since I agree with everything said, I am going to derail.

Steelworkers union? Really?

[Rommie]

I know! Never understood that one either.

[SciFiFisher]

That's similar to when I was a union rep for the Washington State Nurses Association . Since it would be a conflict of interest for the nurses union I worked for to be our union all of our union workers were represented by the Teamsters.

And...wait for it.... we had to file a union grievance against our union boss for creating a hostile work environment. LMBO.

[Rommie]

That's similar to when I was a union rep for the Washington State Nurses Association . Since it would be a conflict of interest for the nurses union I worked for to be our union all of our union workers were represented by the Teamsters.

And...wait for it.... we had to file a union grievance against our union boss for creating a hostile work environment. LMBO.

Now that I think about it, is anyone really that surprised that terrible people amass what little power they can?

[SciFiFisher]

I completely get that and I understand. This was but one example. My larger point was that by bringing the union into our agency, it created conflicts and problems where none existed. It's awful out in some of our county outposts. There's just 1 or two supervisors and a bunch of workers. Instead of working together to get their tasks done, the County Managers spend most of their time disciplining employees and trying not to get grievances filed against them. The Highway Techs spend most of their time filing grievances and finding creative ways to get out of work. To a young, idealistic lad, who hoped that performance and merit should dictate promotions and pay, instead of seniority and service time, it was demoralizing And look what I turned into.

I was afraid you were going to say something like this.

There really is a way for unions, management, and the bargaining unit to work together and create a good environment where things like performance, merit, seniority, promotions, safety, productivity, and etc all can co-exist. Sadly, most people are too short sighted to understand that it really is worth the effort to create that.

When I was a Union Shill I used to tell management "If leaders would lead and supervisors would supervise you wouldn't need me". And I told the bargaining unit members "You are your union. You get out of it what you put in it". Most of them weren't willing to put much in and seemed shocked when they didn't get much out. I think that was when I realized there was a lot of the "do it for me but I don't really want to pay for it" sentiment in the world.

[SciFiFisher]

That's similar to when I was a union rep for the Washington State Nurses Association . Since it would be a conflict of interest for the nurses union I worked for to be our union all of our union workers were represented by the Teamsters.

And...wait for it.... we had to file a union grievance against our union boss for creating a hostile work environment. LMBO.

Now that I think about it, is anyone really that surprised that terrible people amass what little power they can?

I hesitate to suggest that sometimes it is human nature.

[SciFi Chick]

That's similar to when I was a union rep for the Washington State Nurses Association . Since it would be a conflict of interest for the nurses union I worked for to be our union all of our union workers were represented by the Teamsters.

And...wait for it.... we had to file a union grievance against our union boss for creating a hostile work environment. LMBO.

Now that I think about it, is anyone really that surprised that terrible people amass what little power they can?

So true. Just got kicked off the dock we were using by a tyrannical HOA. Our friend wasn't ready for us to leave, but they have a rule that you can only have guests at your dock for two weeks twice a year. Most of the p e ople here don't even have boats but they aren't allowed to do what they want with their own docks. And watching them wield this petty amount of power was mind boggling.

[Thumper]

There really is a way for unions, management, and the bargaining unit to work together and create a good environment where things like performance, merit, seniority, promotions, safety, productivity, and etc all can co-exist.

One of my best buddies works at what was an electrical contracting company started by his father. His last name is the company name. He has grown the company into a general contracting and engineering firm. It's a union shop. I've visited the facilities. You can't tell who are supervisors and who are the "rank and file." You see work groups and teams diligently working to solve problems and accomplish tasks. I was having dinner with Mrs. T a while back and a man walked up to me, excused himself, and politely asked if I still worked for Roberts Engineering Group. I realized I was wearing a polo with their old logo. He explained he had had the opportunity to work there a few years back and it was the best jobs he ever had. I was happy to report that back to my buddy.

Yes it can work. It should work. Like you said, you have to put in the work. He|| I worked that concept into my "advice" to the bride and groom when I officiated their wedding.

[geonuc]

Not to derail, but since I agree with everything said, I am going to derail.

Steelworkers union? Really?

What is funny about the steelworkers union?

[SciFi Chick]

Not to derail, but since I agree with everything said, I am going to derail.

Steelworkers union? Really?

What is funny about the steelworkers union?

Nothing until it covers astronomers.

[Rommie]

It actually covers all PhD students and post docs at the university of Toronto, not just the astronomy ones!

[SciFi Chick]

It actually covers all PhD students and post docs at the university of Toronto, not just the astronomy ones!

Fascinating!

[Cyborg Girl]

@Fisher

Your union story reminds me of some older academic leftists I've met - all theory, no practice. Guys who act like socialism will maintain and fix itself, regardless of how it's implemented - so yeah we should totally support that South American dictator, he says he's socialist!

Or for that matter, more affluent liberals who don't vote because "it doesn't really matter", and claim that's some act of rebellion.

It's leftism as a religion, guys! Believe in it and you'll totally change things, without actually having to do any work!

I think such people are as critical to forming dictatorships as actual zealots, TBH.

[SciFi Chick]

Unfortunately, on the Federal level, voting doesn't really matter. Read the Princeton report. The only hope is to change things on the local level and slowly build up to the federal.

[Cyborg Girl]

It matters. It helped get us the ACA and acceptance of gay marriage (to say nothing of all the stuff really good Senators and Reps can do on both a state and national level). Doesn't change our country being oligarchic and imperial and shit, but still helps a lot of people.

In any case, local is what I'm talking about as much as state and federal. Soooooo many liberals don't vote in local elections, or fail to educate themselves about local candidates. I used to be one of those; no more. (Especially after my town voted to ban pot, WTF?)