[iltos]

my understanding is that a lot of conservatives feel that unions are a drag on american economic prosperity...and unions themselves here have had to soften their negotiating stances somewhat over the years, reflecting the new economic pressures of globalization.

but its pretty well understood that their initial intent was to protect labor from workplace abuse

this article from the nytimes kinda brings this issue into focus from a new perspective...china is considering unions as a way to curb labor abuse, as well as because of its concern over the widening income gap in the country and a fear of social unrest....
but many large foreign multinationals are warning the chinese government that, if enacted, the new law will slow foreign investment in chinese development

from the article
"'On Friday, Global Labor Strategies, a group that supports labor rights policies, is expected to release a report in New York and Boston denouncing American corporations for opposing legislation that would give Chinese workers stronger rights.

'You have big corporations opposing basically modest reforms,' said Tim Costello, an official of the group and a longtime labor union advocate. 'This flies in the face of the idea that globalization and corporations will raise standards around the world.'"

so....here we have a situation in a country that we gringos are eager to condemn for the way it treats its people's access to information and basic freedoms....ironically, a country where captialism has thrived because of cheap labor and cheap production costs....something that also concerns us, because its tough to compete

apparently, according to many in china, that cheap labor is a source of internal discontent and external abuse.....so, in creating unions, china would surrender part of what is now its competitive edge -something that international profiteers don't like- but still, something that will bring china more in line with traditional western economic systems

and something that perhaps we should applaud, as an indication that the chinese government gives at least some thought to it populous

but still...they're unions....and unions are bad....right?

here's the whole article

October 13, 2006
China Drafts Law to Empower Unions and End Labor Abuse
By DAVID BARBOZA

SHANGHAI, Oct. 12 — China is planning to adopt a new law that seeks to crack down on sweatshops and protect workers’ rights by giving labor unions real power for the first time since it introduced market forces in the 1980’s.

The move, which underscores the government’s growing concern about the widening income gap and threats of social unrest, is setting off a battle with American and other foreign corporations that have lobbied against it by hinting that they may build fewer factories here.

The proposed rules are being considered after the Chinese Communist Party endorsed a new doctrine that will put greater emphasis on tackling the severe side effects of the country’s remarkable growth.

Whether the foreign corporations will follow through on their warnings is unclear because of the many advantages of being in China — even with restrictions and higher costs that may stem from the new law. It could go into effect as early as next May.

It would apply to all companies in China, but its emphasis is on foreign-owned companies and the suppliers to those companies.

The conflict with the foreign corporations is significant partly because it comes at a time when labor, energy and land costs are rising in this country, all indications that doing business in China is likely to get much more expensive in the coming years.

But it is not clear how effectively such a new labor law would be carried out through this vast land because local officials have tended to ignore directives from the central government or seek ways around them.

China’s economy has become one of the most robust in the world since the emphasis on free markets in the 80’s encouraged millions of young workers to labor for low wages at companies that made cheap exports. As a result, foreign investment has poured into China.

Some of the world’s big companies have expressed concern that the new rules would revive some aspects of socialism and borrow too heavily from labor laws in union-friendly countries like France and Germany.

The Chinese government proposal, for example, would make it more difficult to lay off workers, a condition that some companies contend would be so onerous that they might slow their investments in China.

“This is really two steps backward after three steps forward,” said Kenneth Tung, Asia-Pacific director of legal affairs at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Hong Kong and a legal adviser to the American Chamber of Commerce here.

The proposed law is being debated after Wal-Mart Stores, the world’s biggest retailer, was forced to accept unions in its Chinese outlets.

State-controlled unions here have not wielded much power in the past, but after years of reports of worker abuse, the government seems determined to give its union new powers to negotiate worker contracts, safety protection and workplace ground rules.

Hoping to head off some of the rules, representatives of some American companies are waging an intense lobbying campaign to persuade the Chinese government to revise or abandon the proposed law.

The skirmish has pitted the American Chamber of Commerce — which represents corporations including Dell, Ford, General Electric, Microsoft and Nike — against labor activists and the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the Communist Party’s official union organization.

The workers’ advocates say that the proposed labor rules — and more important, enforcement powers — are long overdue, and they accuse the American businesses of favoring a system that has led to widespread labor abuse.

On Friday, Global Labor Strategies, a group that supports labor rights policies, is expected to release a report in New York and Boston denouncing American corporations for opposing legislation that would give Chinese workers stronger rights.

“You have big corporations opposing basically modest reforms,” said Tim Costello, an official of the group and a longtime labor union advocate. “This flies in the face of the idea that globalization and corporations will raise standards around the world.”

China’s Labor Ministry declined to comment Thursday, saying the law is still in the drafting stages. Several American corporations also declined to comment on the case, saying it was a delicate matter and referring calls to the American Chamber of Commerce.

But Andreas Lauffs, a Hong Kong-based lawyer who runs the China employment-law practice at the international law firm of Baker & McKenzie, said some American companies considered the proposed rules too costly and restrictive.

Mr. Lauffs said the new rules would give unions collective-bargaining power and control over certain factory rules, and they would also make it difficult to fire employees for poor performance.

“You could hire a sales manager, give him a quota and he doesn’t sell anything, and you couldn’t get rid of him,” Mr. Lauffs said. “It’s not easy to get rid of someone now, but under these rules it would be impossible.”

It is not clear what the final law will look like, and only an updated draft is expected soon. But specialists say the trend suggests that there may be new challenges ahead for foreign companies doing business in this country.

Under China’s “iron rice bowl” system of the 1950’s and 60’s, all workers were protected by the government or by state-owned companies, which often supplied housing and local health coverage.

But by the 1980’s, when the old Maoist model had given way to economic restructuring and the beginning of an emphasis on market forces, China began eliminating many of those protections — giving rise to mass layoffs, unemployment, huge gaps in income and pervasive labor abuse.

The worst off have been migrant workers, most of them exiles from the poorest provinces who travel far from home to live in cramped company dormitories while working long hours under poor conditions.

Migrant workers in virtually every city complain about abuses like having their pay withheld or being forced to work without a contract.

“I don’t know about the labor law,” said Zhang Yin, an 18-year-old migrant who washes dishes in Shanghai. “During the three months I’ve been here, my boss has delayed the salary payment twice. I want to quit.”

Having grown increasingly concerned about the nation’s widening income gap and fearing social unrest, officials in Beijing now seem determined to improve worker protection. In recent years, more and more factory workers have gone to court or taken to the streets to protest poor working conditions and overdue pay.

“The government is concerned because social turmoil can happen at any moment,” says Liu Cheng, a professor of law at Shanghai Normal University and an adviser to the authorities on drafting the proposed law. “The government stresses social stability, so it needs to solve existing problems in the society.”

In a surprisingly democratic move, China asked for public comment on the draft law last spring and received more than 190,000 responses, mostly from labor activists. The American Chamber of Commerce sent in a lengthy response with objections to the proposals. The European Chamber of Commerce also responded.

The law would impose heavy fines on companies that do not comply. And the state-controlled union — the only legal union in China — would gain greater power through new collective-bargaining rights or pursuing worker grievances and establishing work rules. One provision in the proposed law reads, “Labor unions or employee representatives have the right, following bargaining conducted on an equal basis, to execute with employers collective contracts on such matters as labor compensation, working hours, rest, leave, work safety and hygiene, insurance, benefits, etc.”

If approved and strictly enforced, specialists say the new laws would strikingly alter the country’s vast labor market and significantly push up the wages of everyday workers.

“If you really abide by the Chinese labor laws,” said Anita Chan, an expert on labor issues in this country and a visiting fellow at the Australian National University, “migrant-worker wages would go up by 50 percent or more.”

Until now, though, existing Chinese labor laws have gone largely unenforced, which has further complicated the debate here. Opponents of the proposed law argue that enforcing existing labor laws would be enough to solve the country’s nagging problems. Advocates respond that adopting new laws would set the stage for stricter enforcement.

Even lawyers working for multinational corporations seem to agree that there is an epidemic of cheating.

Mr. Liu, the Shanghai lawyer who advised the government on the draft proposal, says many companies avoid existing laws by using employment agencies to hire workers. He says the new law will do more to protect workers from such abuse by holding companies accountable.

“The principle is not to raise the labor standard dramatically,” he said, “but to raise the cost of violating the law. The current labor law is a paper tiger and is a disadvantage to those who obey it. If you don’t obey the law, you won’t be punished.”

[TooBad]

Yes Iltos, when started the unions were a necessary counter-balance to the power of the employers who did not consider the well-being of the employees as being of any concern. They were "human resources" (funny how we used to feel bad about being "personnel", now we are just resources, but I digress) that were to be used up and replaced when no longer useful. Unfortunately, organized crime found out that the employees are just as vulnerable to the abuse of the union as they were to the abuse of the employer. Most unions today are completely corrupt and use "enforcers" to subdue dissidents that won't join or vote for the union. I was a member only for about 6 months back when I was a paid firefighter and I was the only one that spoke out against joining and voted not to join as they would not even get us a raise to cover the dues. I left the fire department and went on to teaching and when I went back a year later and caught up with old friends, they explained that they kicked the union (AFL-CIO) out for exactly what I had warned about. They took the money and did absolutely nothing. While there are still some areas where a union could do some good if it were like when unions started, anymore, any union will succumb to the corruption influences and will never achieve the results needed or expected. That at least is my opinion on the matter.

[Gibble]

Unions had their time and place in western society. For the most part, they've outlived their usefullness. As for China...unions "could" work...but a better situation would be to skip the unions, and just start enacting the labour laws the unions are going to fight for.

Why waste the time with unions when the west has allready done the 'research' for you?

[sy2]

Originally Posted by iltos

my understanding is that a lot of conservatives feel that unions are a drag on american economic prosperity...and unions themselves here have had to soften their negotiating stances somewhat over the years, reflecting the new economic pressures of globalization.

but its pretty well understood that their initial intent was to protect labor from workplace abuse

I agree with you for the most part here. While I consider myself a conservative, I'm more in the in the middle on unions, but I get the feeling that the further right you go, the more anti-union you get... at least that's IMO.

Personally, I'm not too familiar with the union argument, but I think that they're a bt antiquated. They were definitely necessary, and fantastic, back in the days of real corporate abuse of employees (and I'm talking real abuse, no weekends, no bargaining, no hour caps - not someone putting up an "offensive" poster in the lunchroom ), but they seem unnecessary to me in this day and age.

Since we have federal regulations that apply to working conditions and federal organizations/watchdogs that have been created for the sole purpose of ensuring workers' rights, I don't see the unions doing the same job they did before. From my own experience it seems like they exist for the profit of the union leaders, and in fact hinder workplace productivity.

An off-hand example I can think of is the situation in which work may grind to a halt because you need to wait for a union member to complete a particular job that anyone else could finish just as easily, and probably more quickly. I've found myself in situations where in order for me to proceed with my work, the countertops I was working on had to be sterilized and cleaned. Now I could have done that in about 10 minutes and proceeded with my work, but that job is actually the responsibility of a union member, which means that is has to be done by him, and ONLY him. If he's on his lunch break I'm out of luck. That was not the purpose of unions back when they were created.

Add to that the fact that the corporate environment today is one that REWARDS companies who treat their employees favorably. High employee turnover is a nightmare and is capable of crippling any company. The fact is that employerss who abuse their employees today either face legal action or social condemnation - both of which launch the company into the spotlight and force it to adapt or die.

Now as far as China goes -

I think that China is at a stage where unions are necessary. They have none of the federal regulations that we do (not that I know of and my knowledge is admittedly limited) - yet - to ensure safe workplaces, reasonable wages, and a path of recourse for mistreated employees.

It doesn't shock me that foreign entities are upset at this possibility. People love China right now because the labor is so cheap! While this may hurt the US and other countries that heavily outsource to or import from China in the short-term, I believe that it will help these economies in the long-term. Right now, for example, everyone is upset at the amount of outsourcing going on to market that provide cheaper labor. If these markets cease to exist, then it's that much easier to justify bringing those jobs back in-house and employing more nationals.

I believe that only good things would come from unions in China right now. Stateside, I think they've accomplished their goals and are now kept alive as a means of profit and influence for those that run them.

EDIT: I forgot to tie in the whole minimum wage argument... The thing that keeps me against MW hikes right now is that at this point in time, it's easier than ever to outsource labor as a result of globalization and the world effectively "shrinking." If wages increase around the world and outsourcing becomes less viable of an alternative, a national wage increase wouldn't be as threatening to jobs over here. We'd have more wiggle room to between the point at which it's worth it pay our employees more within the country and the point at which is becomes justifiable to ship the jobs to another country.

[sy2]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Unions had their time and place in western society. For the most part, they've outlived their usefullness. As for China...unions "could" work...but a better situation would be to skip the unions, and just start enacting the labour laws the unions are going to fight for.

Why waste the time with unions when the west has allready done the 'research' for you?

I was writing my response when you wrote this, but

That's a good way to look at the situation that eluded me: unions as a sort of an "R&D" firm dedicated to determining what regulations are necessary to ensure a fair, healthy, and competitive workforce/work environment.

Once that research is complete, that's it.

[Rep]

Now, everybody....line up at your employers office door. Go in and begin negotiating your health care package. By youself.

Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.

[sy2]

We actually provide healthcare because it's something that our managers brought to our attention, sans union, that was a major issue contributing to employee turnover.

For a bit of background, we're a manufacturing plant employing mostly Polish, Mexican, Black, and White Americans. As I said in my earlier post, turnover is huge headache and providing healthcare sure took care of that. We even give out free flu shots (although I decline them because they always just get me sick).

Successful companies have learned, for the most part, that happy employees are worth the cost. It just isn't always painfully obvious when you look at things from a strictly numbers standpoint. You need good managers who communicate with your employees. The union doesn't, and shouldn't, be the only go-between between management and employees. That is actually a major function of the managers in the first place!

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by Rep

Now, everybody....line up at your employers office door. Go in and begin negotiating your health care package. By youself.

Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.

Yep, you nailed it. & don't forget the other side of that one:

"OK all you non-members, here's your pay rise -- even tho' you didn't pay any dues".

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by Rep

Now, everybody....line up at your employers office door. Go in and begin negotiating your health care package. By youself.

Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.

I'm not a union member, I have a very good health care package...

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by Rep

Now, everybody....line up at your employers office door. Go in and begin negotiating your health care package. By youself.

Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.

Let me try and reason something out for you.

Insurance costs are high. Why? Because people pay it. Simple.

But, with it being so expensive why is it still being bought at this price? Because unions force their employers to pay a fortune for it...insurance companies know the union will force their employer to buy it...therefor, they can keep raising their prices without worrying about losing the majority of their customers.

Take away unions forcing the employers hand...and insurance companies lose a huge advantage. They won't be able to keep raising premiums because they still NEED customers, and they might actually lose some.

The unionized companies ensure their survival. They don't care if they lose some other companies...as long as they retain their customer base of union shops...because they give their company security.

Supply and demand...unions are messing it up.

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

Yep, you nailed it. & don't forget the other side of that one:

"OK all you non-members, here's your pay rise -- even tho' you didn't pay any dues".

Unions.... Please pay us dues, but remember we're not going to tell you what we do with it...

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

Unions.... Please pay us dues, but remember we're not going to tell you what we do with it...

Dunno what yours have to do -- over here, ours have to publish their accounts by law.

EDIT: link for info. http://www.certoffice.org/pages/index.cfm?pageID=home

[Paquadez]

It is easy and I suggest, simplistic, to believe that Trades Unions are past their sell by date or an anachronism.

The exploitation of people's labor by employers is all a part of history, most of us will agree. However, is it actually a thing of the past?

Whilst it is tempting to think that labor laws and employment rights and practice is pretty much covered by legislation, often this is far from the case. One of the great problems with such legislation is that it suffers from lag: once a dire problem is realised it has to be faced. Politicians are excellent at ignoring problems until they have become crises! Then there are the political problems with actually bringing something into law. It takes time; invariably far too much time.

The dynamics of employment are quite simple. Sorry to be basic, and I am not trying to patronise those reading this thread, but when considering such a topic (which is bound to engender strong feelings and passions!), it is far too easy to forget the basics.

So, basic are that workers sell their core asset: their work. Employers "Buy" this and therefore have to pay for it. OK so far.

In any market situation - and that's what we are talking here - the person with the strongest position, invariably comes out on top, in negotiation. Again obvious.

If one takes the eample of let's say a town, where the employer is the only employer of significance, then to the erstwhile worker, it's Hobson's Choice. Work for that employer of your wife and kids starve.

In the UK, currently, after margaret Thatcher emasculated already weak employment law, and new Labour didn't particularly change it, workers have increasingly been trated as simply numbers on a balance sheet. In the City of London, for example, increasingly, employment, per se, is fast becoming unusual. The new norm is temporary or contract. This way, with a few minor exceptions (under EU law, which is paramount), working conditions have been wound back and employers can avoid and evade the more onerous aspects of employment law.

Obviously, someone with modern and portable skills can elect to be perpatetic. The older worker with a family and local roots may not enjoy such freedom. Should society therefore treat such people as second class citizens and be unconcerned?

I know that the US shares some of these experiences, but for example, in the Uk as manufacturing and traditional activities like coal mining were closed down, many men in the areas affected have not worked for many years. It is OK to say, "Lazy sots; get out and get a job!" However, if there are no jobs or very few, then that is empty rhetoric.

Increasingly, senior managers take decisions, divorced from various realities and based purely on selfish strategy. Is there no attendant social responsibility in running a major corporation?

The new ethos is Stakeholder Theory and this designates both advantage and responsibility at all levels. For example, the locale where any business operates is automatically a stakeholder, because of environmental impact. Obvious really.

Stake Holder Theory states that no decision can be taken without consideration of the stakeholders. Workers in a business are quite obviously stakeholders.

Trades Unions have a poor rep. Their leaders have too often abused their positions. Organised crime has abused the ethos of the union and its members. However, that is no reason to dismiss unions out of hand. The abuse of power by the print unions in the UK newspaper business was a legend.

Trades Unions can form a very effective negotiating mechanism between workers' representatives and management. However, there has to be good will on both sides and integrity of purpose.

Personally, I don't like overmuch Government involvement with life. The less the better. I therefore believe that trades Unions are far better placed to negotiate on work conditions and terms than to try and do this by Government edict.

When I was young and naive and since I grew up in a staunch Right Wing family environment, I believed two things, amongst many others. One was that the poor were responsible for their condition; they were improvident, shiftless, idle and drank far too much. The other central plank of Conservative thinking was that the Trades Unions were totally and singlehandedly responsible for the demise of British Industry since WW II.

Once I grew up, a tad and started studying social sciences, economics and business, I rapidly realised what rubbish these views were! I fairly quickly realised that if any one group of people were to blame for Britain's economic ills, it was to a large extent British Management, simply because they had failed to engage in Industrial Relations until it was far too late and worse, probably they had failed to identify their urgent need to engage in Political Relations. These "managers" were far too keen on getting knighthoods and didn't dare upset their political chums in the heart of Westminster!

Worse, executives were headhunted or imposed on a business by a small network of privilege and qualifications and abilities were of no importance.

Let's not junk Trades Unions because we, society and Government have failed to control extraneous excesses. They have do and can serve a very valuable purpose, if honest intent exists rather than the desire of blind exploitation.

Paq

[bomb #21]

Good post Paq.

(You meant "The new norm is temporary or casual", right?)

[Paquadez]

Thanks, Bomb.

Yes, that's right.

Paq