Unions, are you for or against

[LTS]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:28 PM, North Buffalo said:

The problem I have with your assumption is that Unions are only there to prevent folks from getting fired.  Unions do insure if not sometimes an overburden for a struggling company going thru a bad business cycle, a fair process for relieving someone of their position.  But that is only a part of what they do.  They provide that employees get affordable health insurance.  Retirement plans or pensions separate from or secure from company mismanagement though depending on the agreement that can still happen.  But it is a firewall to prevent it and allows for employees to be secure if they choose not to work overtime especially if family concerns prevent it.  It allows for an employee not be a singular voice when negotiating pay with a large corporation.  I think your depiction of a Union is a bit cherry picking some of the difficulties with Unions without acknowledging the benefits.  Including a stable properly credentialed workforce which a Union often provides.

I thought I had said before that Unions can be good or bad, depending on how they are run.  I might have omitted it in an revision so I only think that I said it.

I am aware of the what Unions do on behalf of their constituents as well.  What i have said is that some of the things they do may not be in the best interest of all their constituents though.  Sometimes the majority wants X and the best thing for a certain group of employees may have been Y.  It happened in my family.

Personally, I never want to be in a Union.  I don't want an organization having that much influence over my work life.  It's just who I am.  It doesn't matter to me if others want to be in a Union or need to be in a Union.  I'm good with whatever works best for people.  If the Union provides the right support for a person, then it's a good thing.  

[North Buffalo]

9 hours ago, LTS said:

I thought I had said before that Unions can be good or bad, depending on how they are run.  I might have omitted it in an revision so I only think that I said it.

I am aware of the what Unions do on behalf of their constituents as well.  What i have said is that some of the things they do may not be in the best interest of all their constituents though.  Sometimes the majority wants X and the best thing for a certain group of employees may have been Y.  It happened in my family.

Personally, I never want to be in a Union.  I don't want an organization having that much influence over my work life.  It's just who I am.  It doesn't matter to me if others want to be in a Union or need to be in a Union.  I'm good with whatever works best for people.  If the Union provides the right support for a person, then it's a good thing.  

Again, having never been in a Union before, I was skeptical.  And I am fine with you not wanting to be in one given your experience with your Dad.  I've seen the best... the Teachers Union with my Dad SUNYAB and the worst, the Buffalo musicians Union with him as well.    However, unless you own and run your own company... the company you work for has that much influence itself... the Union affords some protection against arbitrary and capricious actions by said company.  I have seen the difference between Union and non-union hospitals and the difference is stark.  The treatment of staff in non-union hospitals is atrocious, especially by the Docs, but often it emanates from the supervisors with favoritism being rampid despite levels of competence.  All I am saying is it is easy to dismiss Unions and in today's day and age, the one's that are growing are much more responsive imo.  Guess that goes with anything, including management in companies, but the bigger the company, the more important the need for a Union.

[Eleven]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:28 PM, North Buffalo said:

The problem I have with your assumption is that Unions are only there to prevent folks from getting fired.  Unions do insure if not sometimes an overburden for a struggling company going thru a bad business cycle, a fair process for relieving someone of their position.  But that is only a part of what they do.  They provide that employees get affordable health insurance.  Retirement plans or pensions separate from or secure from company mismanagement though depending on the agreement that can still happen.  But it is a firewall to prevent it and allows for employees to be secure if they choose not to work overtime especially if family concerns prevent it.  It allows for an employee not be a singular voice when negotiating pay with a large corporation.  I think your depiction of a Union is a bit cherry picking some of the difficulties with Unions without acknowledging the benefits.  Including a stable properly credentialed workforce which a Union often provides.

You should see the shitshow that has arisen from defined benefit plans.  Just about every single one of them is underfunded, as a result of union-management collusion to "kick the can down the road."  And that's why we have defined contribution plans instead now.

[LTS]

8 hours ago, North Buffalo said:

Again, having never been in a Union before, I was skeptical.  And I am fine with you not wanting to be in one given your experience with your Dad.  I've seen the best... the Teachers Union with my Dad SUNYAB and the worst, the Buffalo musicians Union with him as well.    However, unless you own and run your own company... the company you work for has that much influence itself... the Union affords some protection against arbitrary and capricious actions by said company.  I have seen the difference between Union and non-union hospitals and the difference is stark.  The treatment of staff in non-union hospitals is atrocious, especially by the Docs, but often it emanates from the supervisors with favoritism being rampid despite levels of competence.  All I am saying is it is easy to dismiss Unions and in today's day and age, the one's that are growing are much more responsive imo.  Guess that goes with anything, including management in companies, but the bigger the company, the more important the need for a Union.

That's correct.  That was my statement earlier.  I know that my company can screw me over and I know I don't have a Union.  I choose that because at the same time I believe that i have the appropriate skill set where the company needs me more than I need them.  I do also run some side work.

I definitely don't dismiss them.  It would be nice if they were unnecessary.  It would be nice if management of a company could find a way to take care of employees such that no one would feel that a Union was necessary.  Fundamentally I believe they create an adversarial relationship more than a collaborative one and that, overall, is not as optimal.  It doesn't mean it's not necessary.

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

That's correct.  That was my statement earlier.  I know that my company can screw me over and I know I don't have a Union.  I choose that because at the same time I believe that i have the appropriate skill set where the company needs me more than I need them.  I do also run some side work.

I definitely don't dismiss them.  It would be nice if they were unnecessary.  It would be nice if management of a company could find a way to take care of employees such that no one would feel that a Union was necessary.  Fundamentally I believe they create an adversarial relationship more than a collaborative one and that, overall, is not as optimal.  It doesn't mean it's not necessary.

I hear you though in many places where Unions are started there is already an adversarial relationships.  Though it is hard to be cookie cutter and like has been said in many pro sports, no matter the family relationship/atmosphere at the end of the day it is still a business relationship and with large companies it is an uneven one unless you are near the top of the totem pole or have a rare specialty skill in demand that allows you to switch companies if you need to.  In my business there is a fair amount of turnover because it is not for everyone and there is a burnout factor so demand is relatively stable.  For a while there were hospital based programs who recieved a medicare bonus for providing training, however that ended a few years back and supply has dropped as result making my skills more valuable.  Having a good working environment was not a choice.  Found a good one luckily as I got started luckily, but checked out a few that were not and they were in non union shops, hence my bias.

Edited July 16, 2018 by North Buffalo

[LGR4GM]

On 7/11/2018 at 11:01 PM, LTS said:

No.  The point of work is to not be an owner.  You have missed what I was saying, clearly I have failed in getting my point across.

Let's address this specific to teaching because that's what you've had in your mind all along.

As a public school teacher, until recently, you would have to be in a Union.  When the time came for cuts, it may be that the harder working teacher was still cut.  However, because that teacher is a good one, (worked hard, etc.) there is a good chance they didn't NEED the Union.  They could potentially go to private school.  They could start their own business tutoring.  They could do a lot of things that a teacher who didn't work as hard wouldn't necessarily have the options to do.  That said, I know quite a few teachers who have pushed themselves into school administration because they didn't want to deal with the Union.  So, they did work hard enough to no longer be beholden to the Union, albeit by a different path.

My point about ownership is that it is the only scenario where you are not beholden to the "management" because you are "management". 

Got it. I think your point is wrong in just about every aspect. I think your assumption, which is what it is, that you didn't work hard enough if you rely on a union is wrong. I think that it lacks an understanding of a lot of different professions including teaching but not limited to it. It fundamentally assumes that during cuts good teachers wouldn't be. Without the union I will tell you exactly what would happen. The teachers with seniority who make the most would be cut. I know this because I watched it happened at a charter in Buffalo. That school didn't keep the hard working teachers, it cut the ones with higher salaries and kept who was ever left. Hard work has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to money and politics. Now I understand that what you are saying is that you could just take your bag and go somewhere else. Not all professions have that option, teaching for example. Eventually this may be true. And yes you  have to work hard to get there. However, what if you get fired because they want to save money? What if because the field is competitive no matter how hard you work and how much you network, and how much you try, how many job interviews, what if you just don't catch that break? You imply a certain inevitability about things that I don't think holds in all real world settings. But perhaps this is getting off topic. 

I suppose in a long run sure your theory could work. Let's look at a state like Indiana. Teachers there make so little that they left the profession in droves. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/indiana-continues-to-see-teacher-shortage-amid-drop-in-pay which has caused a shortage. Now that leaves 2 options. Option 1 is that as you say "i have the appropriate skill set where the company needs me more than I need them" which in turn would mean that eventually the state has to pay teachers or the shortage will just get worse. Your value as a teacher grows because there are not cheap replacements. Remember in teaching it isn't about profit, the value you provide. It is about actually imparting knowledge to other humans. 

Option 2, you just cut education and force it into the private sector with charter and random other schools. In this model you get less and less qualified people doing the job but it doesn't matter because the result is not educating students but making money. It is a corporate model. Kids are a product on an assembly line that must get pushed out. What they learn is less important than getting them pushed out. You don't need teachers just anyone to assemble. It results in the Michigan model championed by the completely incompetent and downright evil Betsy Devos. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f98689365b7 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

Just for the record though, I understand what you mean, even if I do not agree with the entire premise. 

[LTS]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Got it. I think your point is wrong in just about every aspect. I think your assumption, which is what it is, that you didn't work hard enough if you rely on a union is wrong. I think that it lacks an understanding of a lot of different professions including teaching but not limited to it. It fundamentally assumes that during cuts good teachers wouldn't be. Without the union I will tell you exactly what would happen. The teachers with seniority who make the most would be cut. I know this because I watched it happened at a charter in Buffalo. That school didn't keep the hard working teachers, it cut the ones with higher salaries and kept who was ever left. Hard work has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to money and politics. Now I understand that what you are saying is that you could just take your bag and go somewhere else. Not all professions have that option, teaching for example. Eventually this may be true. And yes you  have to work hard to get there. However, what if you get fired because they want to save money? What if because the field is competitive no matter how hard you work and how much you network, and how much you try, how many job interviews, what if you just don't catch that break? You imply a certain inevitability about things that I don't think holds in all real world settings. But perhaps this is getting off topic. 

I suppose in a long run sure your theory could work. Let's look at a state like Indiana. Teachers there make so little that they left the profession in droves. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/indiana-continues-to-see-teacher-shortage-amid-drop-in-pay which has caused a shortage. Now that leaves 2 options. Option 1 is that as you say "i have the appropriate skill set where the company needs me more than I need them" which in turn would mean that eventually the state has to pay teachers or the shortage will just get worse. Your value as a teacher grows because there are not cheap replacements. Remember in teaching it isn't about profit, the value you provide. It is about actually imparting knowledge to other humans. 

Option 2, you just cut education and force it into the private sector with charter and random other schools. In this model you get less and less qualified people doing the job but it doesn't matter because the result is not educating students but making money. It is a corporate model. Kids are a product on an assembly line that must get pushed out. What they learn is less important than getting them pushed out. You don't need teachers just anyone to assemble. It results in the Michigan model championed by the completely incompetent and downright evil Betsy Devos. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f98689365b7 

 

Great response.  Thank you.

First, just keep in mind my wife was a teacher.  I have many friends who are teachers and many who are administrators.  I am very aware of education politics.  I have a friend who is a Union rep for teachers.  I really do see all sides of the situation, albeit no longer any of them being first hand.

Your illustration about hard working teachers who get cut is a great example.  I think that actually shows my problem with Unions.  The best teachers are irrelevant as during a time of cuts its about salaries, not abilities.  Teaching has a certain level of "taking your bag".  A friend of mine started a learning center, she's doing very well.  It takes a lot of hard work, but she's doing it.  There are options, granted it might not be easy, but that was kind of my point.  You have to work harder to make it happen.  Not necessarily just work hard as a teacher, but also as a business person.  Granted I use one person as an example.  I read other articles about teachers doing tutoring and other education related jobs to help make ends meet.  Is there a business to be made there?  I don't know, it's not something I've studied.  Given what my friend has accomplished, I think there are possibilities.

The private school reference to a factory line is applicable as much to public school as it may be private.  Public education is about who passes the state tests.  It's all metrics.  The kids learning is not as relevant as it used to be.  Kids are passed along from grade to grade.  I don't think there's any real difference except one is funded by the government and our taxes and especially beholden to special interest groups/corporations like Pearson.

Teachers are, in my opinion, one of the most important professions we have.  An educated population leads to a better society.  The entire system is an issue.  Some teachers put up with it because of their passion to teach.  I have nothing but the utmost respect for them.  There are other teachers who are there because it's a paycheck.  I know, my kids have had them.

For the profession of public school teaching, Unions are critically important.  At the same time, what have they accomplished?  When reading about the recent strikes it was noted that teacher's salaries have been declining.  The strikes, while helping the salaries of the teachers, may have an adverse impact in that the only way to fund the school is from tax dollars.  School budgets have a hard time passing because many people who don't have kids or no longer have kids don't want to help fund the education of the next generation. So, what cuts will need to be made in order to afford the teachers' raises?

I don't know what is going to happen with education specifically.  It's fundamentally broken, much like healthcare.  The numbers of home schooled kids is rising.  Private schools have been changing their business models looking to pull more of the middle-upper "middle class".  As this happens even more people will vote against public school budgets and will vote in favor of lawmakers who reduce public school expenses.  The Republican tax bill allowing the use of up to $10k for private school tuition makes a huge difference as well.

Reference materials:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/losing-students-private-schools-try-to-change-1514557437

 

 

[5th line wingnutt]

On 7/16/2018 at 9:25 AM, Eleven said:

You should see the shitshow that has arisen from defined benefit plans.  Just about every single one of them is underfunded, as a result of union-management collusion to "kick the can down the road."  And that's why we have defined contribution plans instead now.

I agree, and it goes double for public sector unions.

[LGR4GM]

19 hours ago, LTS said:

 

Reference materials:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/losing-students-private-schools-try-to-change-1514557437

 

 

I couldn't find a good chart to back up my point but your chart I think correlates to public funding for education not keeping up with inflation. 

Good response though. I read it twice because it was interesting and I wanted to digest it. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by LGR4GM

[LTS]

21 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I couldn't find a good chart to back up my point but your chart I think correlates to public funding for education not keeping up with inflation. 

Good response though. I read it twice because it was interesting and I wanted to digest it. 

Very possibly.  Frankly, if the masses aren't educated they are easier to control.  That topic isn't really pertinent to this thread except that I believe education is underfunded as potentially one way to keep people from questioning government.

A clear side effect of that is the impact to those who still try to educate children.

[5th line wingnutt]

Can unions be sued for Janus Claims?

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/19/can-unions-be-sued-for-janus-claims

[LTS]

3 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Can unions be sued for Janus Claims?

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/19/can-unions-be-sued-for-janus-claims

Thanks for sharing that.  I suppose it's a good thing for a short statute of limitations.  That's going to bring some real pain for the continuation of the unions' existence.

It'll be very interesting to see how that case goes.