by Jack Lee
Is there any doubt that liberals/leftists and unions fit like a hand into a glove? This co-dependency is my reason for lumping unions in with liberals and their socialist agenda. Now let’s take a quick look at unions and ask how good they are for our democracy and free enterprise? Note the poster below left from Greece – socialist unions see themselves as soldiers in a war against job providers! And how’s that economy in Greece working out?
It’s true that if you’re a union worker you make an average of $127 a week more than a non-union worker, but what is the flip side, what is the down side of having this extra cash? There are the union’s dues to be paid out, but, that’s not enough to offset the extra money union workers earn. No, the real downside for unions is they cost us jobs. It’s great that a union plumber can earn $65 an hour, but if there are no jobs it doesn’t really matter now does it? This happens when unions push too hard and there is nobody to stop them. Our system depends on free market forces the work in harmony with supply and demand. Unions can’t force their way to greater and greater prosperiety by continually beating up on management – its just that simple.
Union’s have labor contracts that force (literally) employers into regularly scheduled pay raises, Cadillac medical plans and great retirements. The company is expected to abide by that forced contract even when they are not doing well. When times call for cuts and concessions those labor contracts can’t be the death knell for a business barely making it. If a company can’t afford to pay the union labor bill they have only two choices, lay off some workers and scale back or close up shop and go where there is a more affordable labor force. This is just basic economics and it will happen even when times are good. A certain number of businesses will always be forced to relocate, but not nearly as many would if it were not for large unions that have a virtual monopoly over the available work force.
So, thanks to a major recession, heavy regulation, taxation and trade unions, we see a lot of jobs formerly held by American workers now heading somewhere outside the US where the labor is much cheaper and other overhead costs imposed by government are low. Most American companies don’t want to leave. They don’t want their products to say made in Sri Lanka or Pakistan, they want it to be made in America, but it’s just not always possible, especially when the strong arm tactics of unions forced the company into exile.
The costs of unrealistically high labor contracts are passed along to the consumer, its not taken away from executive salaries. When union labor contracts run up against the law of supply and demand it means we quickly become non-competitive and there is always someone, somewhere outside the US ready and able to take our market share. All we have to do is create an opening and foreign business will right there….and there goes American jobs.
Did you know the average union wage for the Big 3 auto makers was $73 an hour? Japanese auto workers earn $52 an hour (note: this includes the cost of benefits for both). Is it any wonder when the recession hit that the Japanese manufacturers were in a position to survive? They required no bailouts – they did not become a burden upon the taxpayers and there is a lesson in that.
The hourly wage or labor costs are factored into each vehicle and that means not only do we pay more for American cars, but we’re competing against Japanese cars that cost less and yet are of equal or greater quality. Who could survive against such a disadvantage? This means we will continue to lose market share to the Japanese unless something done. Jobs are on the line and liberals have no answer, except for bailouts and job banks. The latter is a scandal that would require pages unto itself to explain, but in the short form let me just say the job banks did not create jobs, but they did allow union workers to draw a lot of pay for doing nothing.
The UAW boss Ron Gettlefinger who got those lavish labor contracts for workers for years and that finally broke GM and Chrysler said the union members were willing do their share to help save the US auto industry. Here was their plan. All new hires would receive 50% less salary and exclude them from the legacy plans, i.e., retirement and healthcare. Only one problem, since 2000 the UAW work force has been cut by 50% so there have been no new hires. So much for their contributions.
Look how powerful Gettlefinger was during the 2008 bailouts…”With the fate of an industry hanging in the balance, he refused to back down when Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) demanded that the UAW commit to cutting wages to secure a bailout of Detroit’s Big Three. Gettelfinger’s stance–critics call it intransigence–pushed a government rescue to the brink until the Bush Administration stepped in.”
One of the reasons unions came into existence was because monopolies. This made it near impossible for labor to be treated fairly because they (big businesses) had complete power over their particular domain. Many decades later unions now rely on the biggest monopoly of them all to protect them, the US government. This is why unions have allied so strongly with democrats.
And what about union workers in government?
This is where it gets really bad. In government work in the most general terms the employees are not rewarded as much for productivit as for longevity. When government workers virtually can’t be fired because of 300 page labor contract, there’s little to no incentive to do a really good job, to be creative, to work harder, because you are protected. You’ve got that collective bargaining contract that rewards mediocrity. This is the great flaw of socialism and the failed thinking of those liberals who want us to be more socialistic via unions.
Teacher unions exemplify what I am saying. Tenure makes it nearly impossible to get rid of bad teachers, especially with a union labor contract behind them. Now imagine that teachers, all teachers, served as long as they were productive and they worked at schools only because they wanted too! Imagine that teachers were tasked to do their best to get promotions or incentive pay – in such a situation they would be competing in a performance oriented occupation just like we do in private industry! Just imagine that teachers would actually earn their salaries through hard work and talent! Competition would bring out the best in us! But, alas this is not the way it is is it?
Unions spend more time and money trying to stock our state houses and control the school boards than they do contributing to education. Out of 43,000 tenured teachers in the L.A. school district, a district that has a 50% drop out rate, only 112 teachers were terminated in the 10 year period between 1995 and 2005! If our private industries were run like our school system with all its ineptness, waste and union control we would be second rate nation within the decade.
Let me be clear, I’m not totally opposed to unions nor do I think all teachers are bad. Unions serve a useful purpose at times and we have many great teachers despite the system taht often frustrates them into an early retirement. However, the point to remember is this: When unions and our government get to cozy, (dems and unions) it’s bad for productivity. American jobs are lost, not saved and we are a weaker nation for it!
OH OH Jack, this one is going to get a bigger run than Black Friday door openings. We are talking about that portion of employees (note: I did not use the word WORKER) who are living off the cover of being in a collective, and protected from lack of achievement. Well if that is the case you’re bringing light to the Liberal backroom again. Tinas Webster definition s of liberalism I noted failed to include todays Liberals, because (Remember Todays Q) they believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all Liberal policies because they generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems. Very Union like, note the word productivity is not used here
What I have always chuckled at was how union leaders seek more pay and benefits, but not on productivity because their chant of ‘The Fat Cats’ vilifies the very people who hired them, and then complain the cost of living is to high for unions source of income, known as employees to live compatibly with those Fat Cats, who we know as Conservatives that believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values, policies generally emphasizing empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Really should those prosperity oriented Conservative owners be allowed to make money while Union Liberals do ALL the work, I would say YES, because it works that way for the union leaders now doesnt it?. Occasionally I do hear (whispered) that union dues are high, but I don’t hear, believed or spoken much about their Fat Cat’s leaders that profit solely from ALL their employment, funny how that gets overlooked, but then you dont bite the hand that feeds you now do you.
Thanks Harold, appreciate your comments. The thing I wanted people to get from this is that all things have their tipping point where they go from good to bad. Unions have certainly achieved great things for American workers and I would never want to take that away from them. However, they have also grown so large as to become an irresistible force, threatening, coercing, and intimidating their way to ever higher salary and benefits. At some point those hiring them will have to say enough…we simply can’t afford you. Attached to the labor movement are socialist who want wealth sharing to the point it defeats capitalism and free markets and leads to a non-competitive environment. This has been very damaging to our nation’s economy in terms of growth, GDP, balance of trade and jobs. And that is the main point of this article.
You start with a premise that you cannot prove. The tactics unions use are not liberal tactics. They are not leftist tactics. They are thug tactics.
Labor is leaving the US for countries where they have socialized medicine.
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there . . . . .
Seventy-three dollars an hour is actually LESS than they made in the 70s–when you factor in inflation. Add to this the fact that there are fewer workers due to automation, and the Big 3s vehicle asembly costs are actually one-ninth(!) of what they were in 1978.
Alas! The republicans have so dumbed down education that few are able to factor inflation into their equations.
Sad.
Quentin certainly anything that lowers labor cost is appealing to business and that which increases overhead is not. The bottom line is if a business is out of whack against the costs born by the competition they are in a much weaker position. That inflation you cited also applies to Japanese auto makers too.
‘Alas! The republicans have so dumbed down education that few are able to factor inflation into their equations’.
You have got to be kidding Q, academia is controlled by a liberal mindset and staff of tenured ideologists that rewrite facts as needed, then inject into minds that are being formed,and graded on their ability to regurgitate those opinions on query, and for what?, a higher GPA. Higher education, (if there is such a thing) while it may instruct young people how to think, has not learned to teach them to reason. Now I wonder why that would be ????
Q: “The tactics unions use are not liberal tactics. They are not leftist tactics. They are thug tactics.”
They may not be tactics born of “traditional liberalism” BUT they are definitely modern liberal tactics. (The SEIU thug that beat on Kenneth Gladney was in a leadership position of that union).
The “modern liberal” Democrat is comfortable with these tactics; the modern Democrat Party has been taken over by far left thinkersthe end justifies the means.
Our Presidents liberal use of phrases like, If they bring a knife we bring a gun suggests his support for such tactics. The failure by Eric Holders Justice Department to complete the prosecution of the New Black Panther who was convicted of voter intimidation would also suggest the administration is comfortable with such tactics.
This is not to suggest that every rank and file member of any union would be in favor of the use of these tacticsbut then they havent objected to my knowledge.
There is a strong history of both socialist involvement in unions and organized crime. The association of labor and politics has been primarily with the Democrat Party.
One negative effect of forced wage increases is that it results in higher prices to consumers for many products. Those who can’t count on automatic wage increases have less buying power as a direct result of the “greed” of labor.
The power structure in unions is very similar to the power structure in the Democrat Party. Leadership in both rely on promises their constituents to deliver goodies for votes. This is bound to result in unsustainable agreements (pensions that are underfunded…medical that is impossible to deliver) not to mention corruption.
Tina, we completely agree. Quentin is missing the bigger picture and focusing on minutia to defend his point. Example: Socialized medicine is not the answer to a free market economy.
It may help some businesses who don’t have to pay for employee healthcare, but if that cost is merely shifted to another pocket (higher taxes) then they have gained nothing.
Harold of course you are 100% right! Its distrubing and frustrating that Quentin can not or will not see the error of his logic. He means well, but he’s got a lot his facts and priorities really turned around.
A Profit and Loss statement is quite simple and easy to read. You can’t burden American indusrry to the point they can not manufacture a product priced appropriately to compete with the existing market place…this is economics 101.
“Example: Socialized medicine is not the answer to a free market economy.”
Jack, being a small business man, I have to agree with your take on unions. However I do not agree with the above statement. Since when have big corporations been operating as a “free market”? If we still had honest competition in the world of oil companies, insurance companies, the health industry, etc., I would be all for “free market” health care, but I don’t think we do. The more we deregulate big business, the more the corporate monsters start gobbling up each other and thus, less competition. I’ve heard of some states that have only two or three insurance companies providing health insurance. Look whats happening with the news industry…only a couple to a few parent companies controling most news outlets. Socialism is not the answer when you have an honest free market economy. But when you don’t….what is the answer?
Unfortunately for some of us the days of the great old newspaper is about to give way to the internet and other instant types of media. It had to happen, it was part of our evolution.
Joe, you and I know there’s some market forces that just can’t be stopped no matter how much we might like too. The tendancy to bigger and bigger companies with fewer and fewer owners is one of them and we just have to adapt. It’s progress, like it or not. However, the mega-monster corporations you speak of are still a legitimate force in a free market.
Free does not mean fair.
There is no guarantee that small business can compete fairly against the mega-monsters out here and it was never intended that it be that way. Protectionism, isolationism and whatever else ism’s can only delay what is coming our way.
Harold…I enjoyed reading your initial comment above!
“If we still had honest competition in the world of oil companies, insurance companies, the health industry, etc., I would be all for “free market” health care, but I don’t think we do.
As a fellow small business owner I’m surprised you think we don’t have competiton in oil, helath care, and insurance. As long as there are at least two companies, no matter how large, competing for business we have competition.
The one area that I see needs some improvement is the health insurance industry. If companies could sell their products across states lines, and if they could structure policies to meet the demands of their customers, the price would come down. Small companies like mine could still offer coverage without having to buy the San Fransisco model that includes massages and other therapies that are well beyond basic coverage. It would also make sense to allow small businesses to group together so that they could compete with big business buying power and get a better deal.
Just when I think the idiotic and inane could not possibly out do itself Mr. Colgan posts —
You start with a premise that you cannot prove … (And then, astoundingly writes) … The republicans have so dumbed down education that few are able to factor inflation into their equations.
Dear Mr. Colgan,
Please offer some proofs (or at least some supportive evidence) of your above take on education. Take your time. Be thorough and specific in your evidence. Since you have obviously had the benefit of surviving and overcoming a “Republican” education, it should not really be that big of a deal.
If you do not wish to post any further on the subject in the Post Scripts comments section then make an entry on your own blog and give potential readers a heads up here.
(Maybe I should just quit pickling on Quentin and just let him blather. Shooting fish in a barrel isn’t all it is cracked up to be.)
Pie, could you give us an email address where we can contact you? I have a proposal to offer you. We won’t publish your reply or email address.
Personally, I don’t believe for a minute that just because there are two or more businesses selling the same product, that they are competing. You don’t think these people fix prices amongst themselves? Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t trust corporations any more than I do government. I don’t know what your business is but I think I am safe to say that you and I compete (in our businesses) in the true sense of the word….we have to! Big corps play by different rules. We live in the world of capitalism and competition….they don’t.
Joe thanks for the passionate comment about price fixing. I agree that price fixing is something that goes on in the business world but I don’t believe it is standard practice for most large businesses. I agree also think large corporations resemble big government with layers of bureaucracy. I guess that’s why I’d rather be involved in small business.
White collar crime is an enemy that plagues us but no more so than crimes of any other type. Retail theft causes millions in losses to stores and companies every year and results in higher prices for consummers. Price fixing is against the law. Do a search on “price fixing” and “convictions” and you will see that there have been plenty of cases that end in conviction and punishment. In the end all we who love freedom can do is rely on the law and the courts.
The alternative to this free market system of ours is Venezuela where government takes control by force! Several hundred businesses have been seized by the Venezuelan government in the last year…no thanks!
Tina–“The alternative to this free market system of ours is Venezuela where government takes control by force!”
It is? There’s no middle ground?
Chris: “It is? There’s no middle ground?”
Chris if you had observed the changes I have over the past fifty years you would realize just how much “middle ground” we have put behind us. Wake up dude, we are getting very very close.