Redstate

Good post, Mark. Here's the DOL site that has lots of info: http://www.union-reports.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/rrlo/lmrda.htm

And UnionFacts.com, unveiled last week, also has a bunch of info on where the money went. Suffice it to say it went down the rat hole.

It's that UnionFacts.com site against which that Matt Stoller fellow rants.  I think he has it created by a group of people who know some folks who are a cabal of right wing union busters, or some such.

Is it correct, or maybe getting overwhelmed, or just maybe down?

Sheesh.  Talk about framing.  There are cogent arguments against trade unionism-- but the old saw that unions are rife with graft isn't one of them.  (Believe me, if you're looking to make real kee-yash, you're not working labor side in the labor/management wars.)  And the implicit message of the entire UnionFacts campaign is that union leadership is all about fatcatting on the backs of the average worker.  Why do we have to be so lazy?  

The argument that money spent on lobbying and other political activity is NOT money spent on representing union members is premised on the underlying assumption that union members don't benefit from a growing labor movement.  Can we really argue that, if unions represented a greater proportion of any given industry, that they'd have less leverage to dictate industry-wide terms?  And wouldn't more leverage for unions mean greater concessions from employers?  Of course it would.

Let's be honest.  The reality is that the current system by which unions organize and win employer recognition is largely employer-friendly.  As a result, we're seeing two responses by union leadership:  Either contract around the system (by way of neutrality agreements) or try to change it by helping pro-Labor candidates get elected to public office. Its pretty hard to argue that the "political solution" hasn't been a miserable failure. That's the philosophical difference that helped drive a wedge between what became Change To Win and the rest of the AFL-CIO.  

But why not make the argument that trade unionism makes for inefficiency and an overall lack of flexibility in our market system?  Or how about appealing to most Americans' sense that they, themselves, can be top performers...and a union setting tends to prevents advancement?

Anything other than "They're not looking out for you.  They're out to make a buck."  Because, frankly, the same can be said about employers.

I am a lawyer. My Dad was in a railroad labor union for 30 years. I reprsented the union for many years. I lobbied for the plant closing and other laws. My work was not designed to and did not grow the labor movement. It was designed to benefit existing union members.

I saw many years ago the trend away from the HARD WORK OF SELLING UNIONIZATION AND ORGANIZING.

I see the threat of a union as beneficial in particular circumstances, but the fact is that unionization generally goes against the grain of American's individuality.

Moreover, the negative effects like making it nearly impossibble to fire incompetents is well known.

Unions, also, grew in response to injustices in mass industrialization and prospered in an economy that is no more. Also, we now see that many of the victories by unions in pensions, etc, turn out to bancrupt companies.

But the unions, like liberalism generally are victims of their own success. Federal and state laws now provide the protections that unions first acheheived.

Republicans elected, would feel better represented with Republicans in office, a union spending money on Democrats and liberal causes is not representing them.  It is spendign their dues on something they cannot stand.

One's politics are a personal decision based on the indivudal's ideology and values.  It is presumptuous and mind-numbing for a trade union to suggest otherwise and to confiscate members' money for the political purposes of the union bosses.

Tell a worker in a union shop that the dues are not confiscated.

Beatrice Webb who was all wrong about the Soviet Union are you?  How's Sidney doing, guess you're both getting along in years.  Well you saw the future back then, how did it work out?

Sorry, E -- give this one a shot:

http://erds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQry.do

on every point. However, I want to point out that the Union movement was always a Marxist political movement. From its earliest days in both Europe and the USA it was heavily involved in Marxist and anarchist politics.

   If you ever spoke to some of the truly brainwashed union people you will hear them sprout off Ideas like "Equal payscale for all jobs within an Industry" that comes directly from Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

   The Labor movement is mostly an anachronism in this country, although they might be helpful in other nations such as Mexico, where real labor exploitation is taking place.

Hey Pat:

Are you and Rick Berman working together?-you keep plugging away on unionfacts.com which makes me wonder? I thought it was just "education" about the union hierarchies that unionfacts was after-are their other goals to come? Do you really think unionfacts is reaching union membership?

Just curious.

the brain-washed! As usual Kyle8, you are right on the mark! with all your comments.

I know Rick, but we're not a part of UnionFacts either offically or unofficially.I think it's a great initative and am doing my best to promote it and get the info out.

My post above didn't endorse the AFL-CIO's political strategy-- but I don't think you can credibly argue that Labor advocates have no dog in the political fight.

The National Labor Relations Board's majority is appointed by the President-- along partisan lines.  The Department of Labor is an Executive Agency-- and the Clinton DOL operated quite differently than the Bush DOL.  The National Labor Relations Act was an Act of Congress-- and is subject to Amendment by the same.  

Union members may very well differ with some of viewpoints of the candidates that Unions endorse--just as members of, say, the AARP may be displeased by certain candidate that benefit from contribution by that organization.

The point is well taken that union membership is a term and condition of employment in union shops-- but workers also have means of ensuring that their dues aren't devoted to a union's political efforts.

Again, none of this is intended to defend the AFL-CIO's political strategy. (For starters, the whole strategy is hampered by the sorry state of the Democratic party.)  But Union donations to candidates who favor pro-Union laws does make some sense.  

Thanks for inquiring after me and Lord Passfield.  Its always good to know somebody remembers us.

First, I'm sure it was an accident, but double registrations violate our terms of service.

Second:

Because, frankly, the same can be said about employers.

Yes, well, that's what they're supposed to do, even in the morality plays unions fall back on even now. Neither unions, nor union bosses, nor indeed, anything associated with the union, is supposed to make a buck off of union activity. See the difference?

I confess to being a fairly staunch foe of unions. My beloved bride, from a land where unions are unfortunately thick on the ground, was not, until she started reading things like what's above, in no small part because it doesn't fit with the frame (snicker) of how unions are supposedly looking out for the little guy.

1.  Ugh.  Without getting into the details of why I'm double registered (Short story:  I lost the last password), I'll cop to the rap.  Shall I dive pile-ward or can I stay?
   
2.  The point wasn't that self-interested behavior by Unions is excused by self-interested behavior by employers.  You are quite right in pointing out that employers are supposed to act in their own interest.  The market requires as much.  And, in the case of corporations, the law requires as much.  

HOWEVER, the frame here is that a worker is better off dealing as an individual with an employer because all unions really do is scam them of their money.  My main points are that (a) the argument that unions scam their members is lazy and largely false (Ineffective and corrupt are two different things.) and (b) the subtler inference underlying the "unions are scam operations" argument is that the employer/ employee relationship would be a fair dealing, arms length relationship if it weren't for those meddling unions (and that is often not true).  

The responses to my response have made a slew of better arguments against trade unionism.  But Unionfacts.com doesn't strive to have or be about better ideas-- its a smear job.  And I suspect it is not intended to fight for workers-- but rather to advocate on behalf of employers who don't want to deal with unions.  

If you tell me that you think Unionfacts.com is an intellectually honest enterprise, we can just abandon this thread as a good faith difference between the right and the center-right.  But my take is that its a frame job-- a calculated look at a very small part of a larger picture so as to skew the larger meaning.

Shall I dive pile-ward or can I stay?

It was actually just an administrative note. I guessed that was probably the case, but wanted to get the ground rules straight -- as long as you're not trying to sock puppet or come back after a banning, I don't care.

HOWEVER, the frame here is that a worker is better off dealing as an individual with an employer because all unions really do is scam them of their money.

(I can't believe I'm actually having a debate with someone who uses the word "frame" in this context with a straight face. This is so great.)

Actually, the theme of the piece is that unions and union leaders are more interested in political donation and interaction than in putting their efforts into taking care of their members. This is not precisely a ground-breaking idea.

My main points are that (a) the argument that unions scam their members is lazy and largely false (Ineffective and corrupt are two different things.) and (b) the subtler inference underlying the "unions are scam operations" argument is that the employer/ employee relationship would be a fair dealing, arms length relationship if it weren't for those meddling unions (and that is often not true).

Properly:

(a) I think you'd have a lot of road to plow to assert that unions are not corrupt. To argue that the corruption does not significantly impact their ability or even effectiveness at taking care of members: Arguable. That the DoJ doesn't keep a unit posted on them 24/7: Not so much.

(b) Actually, you've missed the point. An employer-employee relationship may or may not be at arms' length; that's dependent on the facts at hand. What's always true is that the employee can quit, and take his product elsewhere. He can negotiate terms before he begins working, and if he doesn't get the terms he wants, he can move along.

My grandfather was a sharecropper, then an electrician. My father was an engineer. I'm a lawyer. None of us -- not even Papan -- were forced into slavery (although sharecropping comes closest) by our employers, because it was and is always legal to quit and go elsewhere.

So your, ahem, frame of the frame is off the mark.

But Unionfacts.com doesn't strive to have or be about better ideas-- its a smear job.  And I suspect it is not intended to fight for workers-- but rather to advocate on behalf of employers who don't want to deal with unions.

Bully for them. I suspect they're doing what they're doing for the reason that you suspect; I also suspect that the side effect of that work will yield results like you outline in the first part of the sentence.

If you tell me that you think Unionfacts.com is an intellectually honest enterprise, we can just abandon this thread as a good faith difference between the right and the center-right.  But my take is that its a frame job-- a calculated look at a very small part of a larger picture so as to skew the larger meaning.

I don't think I've expressed any such opinion, nor do I care. Wal-Mart Watch, for example, is just a union front designed to force Wal-Mart into union thrall, even though they hold themselves out as giving two shakes about consumers. They clearly don't, but one might argue in good faith that the side effect of their work will benefit consumers.

Heh. Framing.

are remembered.  Do hope you see the present better than you saw the future.

What constitutes a "pro-union law"?  What benefits the trade union qua a trade union?

And is the call that of the union leadership or that of the individual union members?

The framing on this site over the past few anti-union posts has centered on a few general points:

1.  Unions are hopelessly corrupt.
   
2.  Union leaders are fatcats who care more about lining their own pockets than the workers they represent and spend more time and money lobbying congress than they do on their members.
   
3.  Even if unions once had a place in labor relations in this country, Corporations have seen the light, and this enlightened management, along the of government regulation of the workplace, make unions a hopeless anachronism.
   
4.  Unions have destroyed major industries in this country through their greed and intransigence, including the steel, automobile, and now threaten to destroy the airline industry.  The impending pension crisis is wholly or mainly due to the outrageous demands of union contracts.
   
5.  Americans are rugged individualists who don't want unions to negotiate their terms of employment for them.  They are quite capable of working out the best employment deal possible without collective bargaining.
   
1. and 2) certainly are valid complaints but the same can certainly be said of much of corporate governance in this country.  It has been quite a while since major union leaders have been sent to jail or tried for corruption.  Yet the line of corporate titans who are drawing long prison terms continues to grow.  The amount of money unions spend on lobbying pales in comparison to corporate lobbying.
   
3. ignores the fact that most government regulation of work conditions is the direct result of union pressure and that industry fought the regulation every step of the way.  Not to mention that you would be the very first site to argue against continuing regulations as unnecessary interference of the government in the workplace.
   
4.  grossly oversimplifies the situation and completely ignores the contribution of short-sighted and incompetent management that sought short-term profits instead of modernizing or investing in research and development.  As for the airline industry, that is an industry that has yet to hit upon a successful business model, and the one airline that has been one of the most successful (Southwest) is also one of the most heavily in the industry.  The pension crisis also has almost nothing to do with unions, since that is a crisis of corporate pensions, unions fund their own pensions for their members.  Again, corporations deliberately underfunded pensions to increase profits and are now looking to the government to bail them out.  This is hardly the fault of the unions.
   
5.  As nice as it is to think that when I accept a job with General Electric, I get to sit down with the good General and go one on one and hash out a detailed employment contract, this of course is a complete fantasy.  

Accepting a job with a major corporation is a take it or leave it proposition nowadays.  The offer doesn't even come from your manager anymore, it comes from HR.  The only thing you might be able to negotiate is the salary, and that is only if they really want you bad.  Otherwise their first offer is the final one.  On your first day of work, you are handed a pile of documents to sign, and if you don't like what any of them says, your only option is not to accept the job.  

This is not freedom to contract in any reasonable sense of the word, it is a contract of adhesion.  I once worked for Westinghouse and the intellectual property agreement stated that anything I invented while working for Westinghouse, even if I invented on my own time at home and it had nothing to do with my job, was the property of Westinghous.  This of course was completely ridiculous and unenforceable but if I had refused to sign it I would have been told to go home.  As long as there is such a disparity of bargaining power in the employment relationship there will be a place for unions to level the playing field somewhat.

I don't know what I did to deserve two rounds of "framing" in one 24 hour period, but I didn't think I'd been that good a boy lately. Did you guys wander over from Kos? You are aware your own Party doesn't buy this stuff, right?

Unions are hopelessly corrupt.

Given how corrupt you'd have to be, to be hopeless, I don't think anyone's asserted that here.

Union leaders are fatcats who care more about lining their own pockets than the workers they represent and spend more time and money lobbying congress than they do on their members.

Well, the first may or may not be open to interpretation, but the second appears to be plain fact.

Even if unions once had a place in labor relations in this country, Corporations have seen the light, and this enlightened management, along the of government regulation of the workplace, make unions a hopeless anachronism.

I hope no one's saying this; they'd be wrong. Unions never had a place in labor relations in this country. They just took some nice soft socialism and monopoly tendencies, and shoved themselves in. I hope to God corporations haven't "seen the light."

Unions have destroyed major industries in this country through their greed and intransigence, including the steel, automobile, and now threaten to destroy the airline industry.  The impending pension crisis is wholly or mainly due to the outrageous demands of union contracts.

I'd like to take credit for tying all those together, in a comment somewhere. Unless you're asserting that the massive labor costs that go into those products have had no effect on the state of American competitiveness? (And no fair saying, If only we'd force the whole world to pay what we do/unionize... -- that's just conceding my argument.)

Americans are rugged individualists who don't want unions to negotiate their terms of employment for them.  They are quite capable of working out the best employment deal possible without collective bargaining.

Whether the first is true, an elementary aspect of contract law is presuming that adults can contract for themselves.

It has been quite a while since major union leaders have been sent to jail or tried for corruption.  Yet the line of corporate titans who are drawing long prison terms continues to grow.  The amount of money unions spend on lobbying pales in comparison to corporate lobbying.

Query: What structure is analogous to the NRLB, or the DoJ's oversight of unions? When was the last mobster with union ties sent to jail?

Next query: Why should unions be allowed to lobby?

ignores the fact that most government regulation of work conditions is the direct result of union pressure and that industry fought the regulation every step of the way.  Not to mention that you would be the very first site to argue against continuing regulations as unnecessary interference of the government in the workplace.

So we're to be decried for our intellectual consistency? Heavens!

grossly oversimplifies the situation and completely ignores the contribution of short-sighted and incompetent management that sought short-term profits instead of modernizing or investing in research and development.

See above.

As nice as it is to think that when I accept a job with General Electric, I get to sit down with the good General and go one on one and hash out a detailed employment contract, this of course is a complete fantasy.

Then go somewhere else. You're not entitled to that job, and they're not entitled to your labor. Make them sweat for it.

Accepting a job with a major corporation is a take it or leave it proposition nowadays.  The offer doesn't even come from your manager anymore, it comes from HR.  The only thing you might be able to negotiate is the salary, and that is only if they really want you bad.  Otherwise their first offer is the final one.  On your first day of work, you are handed a pile of documents to sign, and if you don't like what any of them says, your only option is not to accept the job.

LIKE AN ADULT! The FIENDS!! Expecting you to undertake actions and accept consequences!

This is not freedom to contract in any reasonable sense of the word, it is a contract of adhesion.

That last term has a specific meaning. You clearly don't know it.

I once worked for Westinghouse and the intellectual property agreement stated that anything I invented while working for Westinghouse, even if I invented on my own time at home and it had nothing to do with my job, was the property of Westinghous.  This of course was completely ridiculous and unenforceable but if I had refused to sign it I would have been told to go home.

Why would you be upset at being asked to sign nonsense? Furthermore, as it upset you so much, I presume you quit immediately.

As long as there is such a disparity of bargaining power in the employment relationship there will be a place for unions to level the playing field somewhat.

As long as there are millions of consumers, and there is a disparity between corporations' ability to meet demand and compete, there will be a place for monopolies to level the playing field somewhat.

Unions should be allowed to lobby for precisely the same reason corporations should.  To level the playing field somewhat between the power of the corporation and the employee.

The essential fact that you seem to ignore, forget, or just don't think is important is that the government has sanctioned a powerful legal entity called the corporation that completely distorts the playing field in labor relations.  Corporations have inordinate bargaining power in the employment relationship, even to the point that if they don't like the cost of labor or government regulation, they can relocate their operations offshore.  This hardly puts me in a very good bargaining position if I am trying to negotiate a salary and the CEO tells me, "well if you don't like the salary, there's a guy in India who will do the job for $5000".

If corporations didn't exist and people really could go in and deal with small businesses and negotiate their terms of employment with the business owner or a small closely held partnership, then maybe unions wouldn't be necessary.  But corporations do exist and their bargaining power in relation to the individual employee means that the employee has no meaningful ability to negotiate the terms of his employment and his contract thus becomes a contract of adhesion (a contract offered to one person on a take it or leave it basis with no opportunity to alter the terms--I know exactly what it means and it describes most employment contracts in this country).  Unions, like corporations, are legal entities recoginized by the government that operate under rules established by the government.

...or maybe because I've actually represented corporations in my time, I tend to laugh at things like this:

The essential fact that you seem to ignore, forget, or just don't think is important is that the government has sanctioned a powerful legal entity called the corporation that completely distorts the playing field in labor relations.

This is interesting agitprop, but not really connected to our reality. Most corporations -- the overwhelming majority -- are mom and pop operations. All the "corporation" allows you to do, is to undertake business operations with a liability shield. "Corporations" do not "distort" the "playing field in labor relations." The aggregation of capital tilts the balance in a certain way, but I've yet to see the employees of multinationals shackled to their chairs, forced into slavery.

Corporations have inordinate bargaining power in the employment relationship, even to the point that if they don't like the cost of labor or government regulation, they can relocate their operations offshore.

Some can. Most can't. It's largely dependent on the nature of their operation and their needs. I'd guesstimate that less than 3% can do this with any efficiency.

I know, I know, you have a "frame" you're working with here. It's just at odds with reality, is all.

This hardly puts me in a very good bargaining position if I am trying to negotiate a salary and the CEO tells me, "well if you don't like the salary, there's a guy in India who will do the job for $5000".

Try a different company. Or a different line of work. Find a company that can't outsource that way, if it upsets you so much.

If corporations didn't exist and people really could go in and deal with small businesses and negotiate their terms of employment with the business owner or a small closely held partnership, then maybe unions wouldn't be necessary.

1. Most corporations are small businesses.
   
   
2. You're eliding. I negotiate my terms all the time, even if it's only by saying, The other guy will pay me more. Will you match or exceed? Everyone can do that -- and if they don't like the results, they can move along.

But corporations do exist and their bargaining power in relation to the individual employee means that the employee has no meaningful ability to negotiate the terms of his employment and his contract thus becomes a contract of adhesion (a contract offered to one person on a take it or leave it basis with no opportunity to alter the terms--I know exactly what it means and it describes most employment contracts in this country).

1. Properly, most employment situations in this country are not by contract.
   
   
2. No, you don't, as an adhesion contract also gives you no opportunity to find an alternative. Insurance contracts, especially ISO forms, are classic examples of adhesion contracts, because the terms you get will be identical with State Farm, Nationwide, or AIG. What you have is relatively low bargaining power relative to that particular purchaser of human capital. There's a difference. Sell your wares elsewhere.
   
   
3. Maybe you're just a bad bargainer. Has that occurred to you? Helpful hint: Sometimes, you have to be willing to walk away.

Unions, like corporations, are legal entities recoginized by the government that operate under rules established by the government.

Just because we do a thing, doesn't make it right.

Oh, and:

Unions should be allowed to lobby for precisely the same reason corporations should.  To level the playing field somewhat between the power of the corporation and the employee.

Not only does that make no sense, it doesn't even bother to be internally consistent.

in this country do not have a huge impact on laws that are passed.  That corporations, through their trade organizations and directly, don't lobby congress? So given that I don't understand why unions shouldn't be allowed to lobby. Or why you claim I am being internally inconsistent.

And of course pointing out that most corporations are closely held small businesses is just obfuscating.  Such businesses have very little to do with the issue of unionization or the discussion at hand.  I don't know why you brought it up.

Now, you have stated that you hate unions, but not why they are bad (just that you don't like them because they are socialistic).  

In the abstract, why shouldn't collective bargaining be allowed?  What is the harm in allowing employees banding together to protect their interests anymore than a group of stockholders banding together to influence the decisions of the board.  If the corporation doesn't like the deal, they are free to go elswhere.  All your arguements against unions come down to, "I don't like unions, so we shouldn't have them".

Apparently,  you also don't get what it means to take a job in the corporate world today.  They are most certainly contracts of adhesion.  Benefits are standard, salaries are normalized based on careful evaluation of industry standards, so the ordinary applicant doesn't have much opportunity to negotiate anything.  HR (not your boss) extends an offer, you can take it or leave it.  If you work in a certain industry that only has a limited number of players, then although the the benefits may vary a little, you certainly are going to have less choice than you would in picking car insurance.  So your only real choice is to change careers, which of course is not always possible or practical.

All the arguments against unions would seem to apply equally to corporations and even partnerships.  Let's just return to individual ownership of businesses where the business owner is completely at risk then everyone can bargain on an equal playing field.

corporations and businesses in general create jobs.  Unions do not.

Its good to see another lady of labor enter the fray.

But does the fact that corporations produce jobs for people mean that people cannot band together to ensure certain basic protections and to lobby for better wages?

that his mandate was to create jobs would last very long in his position.  Corporations exist to create wealth or generate stockholder value.  

Large corporations are constantly seeking ways to extract the maximum amount of work out of employees for the least cost--hence the constant emphasis on productivity (merely a codeword for the most work for the lowest cost).  And the rational employee will strive for just the opposite--to extract the most compensation out of the employer for the least amount of work.  

If an employer can convince the government to restrict worker rights such that they are not able to sue for compensation for causing lung cancer for exposure to asbestos, then it is likely in the future employers are more likely to expose future workers to dangerous chemicals, knowing that they will be able to convince the government to absolve them of liability.  If there is not a union to protect the workers' health, then who will?  If employers are able to renege on their pension commitments simply by declaring bankruptcy, wouldn't it be better for unions to handle the pension funds, where they are more likely to be fully funded rather than be plowed into profits to boost stock value (as they were in the nineties).  Obviously, the corporations are more concerned about their stock value than the long term liquidity of their pension funds (although rarely do they renege on their executive pension funds).

Until we all live in a perfect capitalist state where we are all the owners of our own businesses this will always be the case.

The advent of the union was to provide for better wages, safer working conditions, etc....Today, we have a minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC, Workers Compensation, unemployment insurance (funded by the business owners) et al.  Hooray!!!! The collective bargainers got what they wanted via fedral and state staute.  On top of that, union labor stifles economic growth as it is an anvil on the neck of captialism.

but as a small business owner (please remember that all large corporations were once small businesses) I gotta reward the best and brightest, not the person with the most tenure.  I find it perplexing that people will argue the union point of view, but have never had to make payroll, pay benefits, cough up Work Comp premium and unemployment taxes.  It's really easy to spend someone else's money.

I don't get it?

An effort for which I'm now being punished, I see.

Are you trying to say that Corporate interests  in this country do not have a huge impact on laws that are passed.

Well, the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and Morgans are prone to literally walking across the backs of the poor, all the while lighting their cigars with $10 ($10!!) bills, I grant you. What with their vertical and horizontal monopolies, it's only a matter of time before they overrun farmers' interests, I tell you. A cross of Gold! A cross of Gold!

That corporations, through their trade organizations and directly, don't lobby congress?

They traditionally do so from smoky rooms, where they run the Major Parties, and keep the working man down.

Or why you claim I am being internally inconsistent.

The two are not related.

And of course pointing out that most corporations are closely held small businesses is just obfuscating.  Such businesses have very little to do with the issue of unionization or the discussion at hand.  I don't know why you brought it up.

Gee, I dunno. Might it have had something to do with someone else's loose use of the word "Corporations"? Might it even have had something to do with the effect of unions on closely held businesses?

Now, you have stated that you hate unions, but not why they are bad (just that you don't like them because they are socialistic).

And because you've asked such incisive questions, I'm not going to, either.

In the abstract, why shouldn't collective bargaining be allowed?

How are you on cartels? Monopolies? Ologopolies?

What is the harm in allowing employees banding together to protect their interests anymore than a group of stockholders banding together to influence the decisions of the board.

Maybe because the stockholders are not directly involved in the supply and demand equation?

If the corporation doesn't like the deal, they are free to go elswhere.

Actually, the problem with unions is, no, they're not. In closed-shop states, they can't do what they should be able to do, i.e., fire the entire union membership and hire folks who'll actually work for a living. This is because unions distorted the law and the market to their own benefit. Indeed, even in right-to-work states, firing someone for union membership causes problems.

But for that, I wouldn't particularly care.

All your arguements against unions come down to, "I don't like unions, so we shouldn't have them".

Actually, all my "arguements" have to do with other things, but your recycled Chomsky didn't get there.

Apparently,  you also don't get what it means to take a job in the corporate world today.

Oh, Good Lord, no. Never have. Please, elucidate.

They are most certainly contracts of adhesion.

See, when you persist in using a term incorrectly, I tend to treat you as a cretin. Are you saying the exact same salary, benefits, vacation, etc., is offered for the exact same position at every corporation, with no ability to bargain?

I'm not the one out of touch, copain.

Benefits are standard, salaries are normalized based on careful evaluation of industry standards, so the ordinary applicant doesn't have much opportunity to negotiate anything.

Actually, if all else fails, he has the perfect option to negotiate: He can turn down the job.

HR (not your boss) extends an offer, you can take it or leave it.

The second clause there may be important.

If you work in a certain industry that only has a limited number of players, then although the the benefits may vary a little, you certainly are going to have less choice than you would in picking car insurance.

Proving that you've never read more than one insurance policy.

So your only real choice is to change careers, which of course is not always possible or practical.

Gee, life sucks all around, huh?

All the arguments against unions would seem to apply equally to corporations and even partnerships.  Let's just return to individual ownership of businesses where the business owner is completely at risk then everyone can bargain on an equal playing field.

Great idea. The Middle Ages rocked.

How is spring break going?

But, sister, who will enforce these protections?

And who will bargain for those wages?

I have long admired your writings on a host of issues, but you lack a certain graciousness.

Humility is a christian virtue, brother.  Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam-- not yours.

Could you point out where I ditat Majorem Gloriam Meum est?

I just think that we need to remain humble in everything we do-- and your writing (while often excellent) sometimes veers into indulgent self-aggrandizement (with side servings of ad hominem attacks and withering condescension).

Remember: "A man who is eating or lying with his wife or preparing to go to sleep in humility, thankfulness and temperance, is, by Christian standards, in an infinitely higher state than one who is listening to Bach or reading Plato in a state of pride."

Criminy, I must be tired.

And I'm more than willing to cop to the ad hominem line, although I like to think I'm generally more artful than that; but I must confess to a blind spot where the self-aggrandizement is concerned. Honestly. I spend a good part of my day reminding myself (when Life doesn't do it for me) exactly how slow I am; I'm somewhat nonplussed that it doesn't carry through to here.

maybe I should apply for sainthood.

distort the playing field?

Everything is just supply and demand. Big corporations have to compete to get qualified employees.

The real distortion I see is that union shops like those in Detroit (GM, for example) get their a***s handed to them by the Japanese. You can become competative now, or you can join a union and put it off for a few years . . .

Corporations exist to create wealth or generate stockholder value.

That's 100% correct.

If an employer can convince the government to restrict worker rights such that they are not able to sue for compensation for causing lung cancer for exposure to asbestos, then it is likely in the future employers are more likely to expose future workers to dangerous chemicals, . . .

How would the employeer convince the government of that? Certainly the employeer might be a big contributer, but then so are lawyers and other "interested" groups, and politicians tend to cater to populist concerns . . .

In the world I live and work in, there are way too many government rules and regulations, even without the benifit of collective bargining.

If employers are able to renege on their pension commitments simply by declaring bankruptcy, wouldn't it be better for unions to handle the pension funds, . . .

Why trust the union?

I have more faith in my 401k, anyway . . .

Until we all live in a perfect capitalist state where we are all the owners of our own businesses this will always be the case.

What would make that perfect?

I'm fairly new here.

not because of the UAW.  GM simply has arguably the worst management team in the history of big corporations.  They have managed to mismanage GM for the last 40 years.

True, the UAW has taken advantage of their weakness but I have a hard time blaming them.  The UAW exists (sort of) to benefit their members.  GM's management exists to steward the assets of the shareholders.  If life were "fair" no GM executive would be allowed to cash in his/her retirement plan.