Ok, let's talk unions again

[smockers83]

A free market does not mean no $$$ silly. C'mon, you're just being childish. There are labor laws, there is minimum wage

Both of those examples don't exist in a free market, actually. I think that was the point of the above comment.

So I guess the Union was indeed a labor union in that they came in and freed the slaves from the Confederates, improving working conditions, not allowing people to be treated the way they were and earn a decent wage. Thus we witnessed the bloodiest labor dispute in the world? Or did we witness free market capitalism vs. non-free market capitalism?

A free labor market does not imply slavery because in slavery there isn't the free movement of labor. Free movement of labor means that labor can move as it wants to, responding to the work available at a given wage. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case in slavery.

I would say that's what his point was is debatable, I think he was taking liberty with the word "free". However, point conceded on my two examples as it is regulation.

[IBCoupe]

I'm sorry, did I hit a nerve? Sorry, I don't work in a union environment. I'm too smart for that, I'm what they call a white shirt.

Ha, what a d!ck. No, you didn't. You've drastically overestimated how much I care about you. It's probably not possible for you to "hit a nerve."

Again, you failed. Follow me here. Remember when I first posed the question about a free labor market? I said that the essence of a free market is that resources are free to move around, in this case capital and labor.

And it is. The resources are absolutely free, and the capital is as free as it ever is in a modern society: so long as you don't violate individual rights, you're free to do with your cash what you wish.

If a company cannot manage it's own workforce as it deems necessary, such as getting rid of a Brother for legitimate reasons that any other company in its right mind would get rid of a person for, it's capital is tied up in that worker, thus the market is not a free one.

Only thing that could prevent that would be a contract the company freely signed.

Now, if a company decides to screw its workforce, its workforce will be unhappy and they will leave.

This can still happen with a union.

But those that will leave bring the market back to equilibrium because the amount the company is willing to pay the ones who stuck around felt it wasn't worth it to move. Sure, they may be upset, but they're also making an economic decision.

This can still happen with a union.

If a company keeps screwing its employees with wages and what not, eventually it can't stay staffed for the amount of work required to generate profits due to too many people leaving.

This can still happen with a union.

Two things can happen, the company keeps hurting itself by thinking it needs to cut costs, screwing more employees or it comes to its senses and recognizes the true problem.

This can still happen with a union.

But if they're making the wrong decisions and continue to screw people over, it is better that the company goes down because they're not making good economic decisions. The capital and labor of the company can be better applied within the economy.

This can still happen with a union.

You have the thinking from the late 1800s/early 1900s. A free market does not mean no $$$ silly. C'mon, you're just being childish. There are labor laws, there is minimum wage.

Ah, so it's still a free market when there are regulations? So what's so wrong about unions?

It's a novel concept called price discovery.

This can still happen with a union.

A union on the other hand, with it's demanded, strong-armed higher wages relative to the free market equilibrium,

Okay, I'm about done with you. First, if you, an employer, sign a contract with a subcontractor for a higher price, you have no right to complain. It's a contract; you made it without duress. Second, if the wages go up and you get nothing in exchange, you have no right to complain. It's a contract; you made it without duress. This shouldn't be terribly difficult to understand, especially for a "white shirt," whatever the hell that is.

But that capital could be better allocated due to the market being out of equilibrium and/or the labor could also be better allocated to where it's needed.

That can be said about of lot of things. Why not eliminate the minimum wage? Why not put children back in factories?

Also, just for clarification, in case you need it, when I say labor, I mean the labor force.

Durr, thanks.

Absolutely not. I think I made that perfectly clear in that example that an employer can offer more pay, but only if it sees the benefit of increased capital allocation towards labor. And yes, unions can prevent wage competition. Going back to the Brotherhood, they have a national contract. YRC Worldwide's labor voted in wage concessions which has caused ABF to sue the Brotherhood because they haven't gotten the same concessions. The same thing happens at the Big 3 with the UAW. If one company gets concessions, the others usually follow, or vice versa (union gets more, the other companies usually end up following suit). This is clearly not wage competition. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of my example that you are questioning, for some unknown reason.

But that's not a problem inherent in unions. It might be a problem involving some unions, but that isn't the source of the problem. In the first instance, it's potentially an example of bad union management, or perhaps the Brotherhood is challenging the concession vote's validity.

In the second, I invite you to forget about whom the parties are and instead view them as people. One person has contracted with three other people, and has set prices for what it supplies. Sound familiar? You're seeing a power imbalance, and they will always exist to varying extents, and they will have different effects on the contract that unfolds. For a number of reasons, my union is moderately disadvantaged when it comes to my employer: the customer is the Federal Government and only the Federal Government, and the union represents a small portion of the parent corporation's workforce, to name two.

And if you think the results of that power imbalance suck, imagine how much they suck for a non-unionized employee contracting (of adhesion, basically) with a large employer.

[R/T Hemi]

IB. Dude, if you could learn to separate emotion from your response, you'll be one hell of a good poster. You present your argument well until you get a little frustrated encountering someone living in a dream world like Smockers does. He doesn't have a clue about unions and you're not going to set him straight, so let him believe bosses are nice and considerate and the free market doesn't favor management over labor.

I hope you take this as an effort to help you better your net skills, as that's how it's meant.

[IBCoupe]

I think the whole of my post represents a great deal of restraint. I respond to rudeness in kind. That's all I ever did to Audtatious, probably the mod Z has claimed that I ran off the Politics board.

[Encryptshun]

If you'd ever stand in a court of law and call the opposing counsel a "d*ck", I don't think the Judge would really care if it was because someone was rude to you.

Just sayin'.

[IBCoupe]

1. Not planning to litigate.
2. This isn't a court of law.
3. If it were, I don't think that implicit stupidity on the basis of union membership would fly, either. At least when I call people stupid, it's because of something they've said.

[AppleBonker]

But what are the odds that opposing counsel will call all union members "less intelligent"?

[R/T Hemi]

1. Not planning to litigate.
2. This isn't a court of law.
3. If it were, I don't think that implicit stupidity on the basis of union membership would fly, either. At least when I call people stupid, it's because of something they've said.

What does that accomplish? The target of your vitriol isn't going to own it, and the audience looks less favorably on someone who does that. You have the skills to win without resorting to such shenanigan.

[AppleBonker]

The target of your vitriol

Vitriol? I noticed him calling a duck a duck.

Back on topic

However, if a demand creates an obvious (and, in this case, instant) impasse because it is unreasonable up-front, there is no incentive for the other party to even bother making a counter-offer. Because the counter-offer may/will have to be so far in the other direction that negotiations will stale-mate. The other party can and will walk away from any possible deal.

I really don't think this is an over-the-top demand. "We'd like the same deal we had for the last three years" is not over-the-top. It may be unrealistic given the current economic climate, but that doesn't make it outlandish. It simply makes it unlikely.

I suppose I may be splitting hairs, but how would you differentiate between "unrealistic" and "over-the-top"? It seems you two are actually closer to being in agreement, just not on the specific label you are choosing to apply.

[szh]

However, if a demand creates an obvious (and, in this case, instant) impasse because it is unreasonable up-front, there is no incentive for the other party to even bother making a counter-offer. Because the counter-offer may/will have to be so far in the other direction that negotiations will stale-mate. The other party can and will walk away from any possible deal.

I really don't think this is an over-the-top demand. "We'd like the same deal we had for the last three years" is not over-the-top. It may be unrealistic given the current economic climate, but that doesn't make it outlandish. It simply makes it unlikely.

I suppose I may be splitting hairs, but how would you differentiate between "unrealistic" and "over-the-top"? It seems you two are actually closer to being in agreement, just not on the specific label you are choosing to apply.

Maybe you are correct.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Here's my view:

An unrealistic claim is within the realm of fiscal possibility. Verizon has the capacity to continue paying full medical. It may lack the desire and it may require other concessions to do so, but it is objectively within Verizon's ability to fulfill.

An over-the-top demand is so outlandish as to be impossible to be fulfilled, regardless of other concessions, or would negate Or violate some other right held by one or more parties.

[AZhitman]

I would agree with that position. Well-stated.

The "over-the-top" part is, in my view, the unwillingness to contribute even a little towards something (that they may well have had in the past), that the vast majority of normal Americans don't see as the full responsibility of the employer. The demand isn't necessarily over the top in content, it's over the top in its "demandingness".

I really wish they'd all stop pretending this issue is something it's not, though. The 800-lb gorilla that no one on either side wants to discuss is the obsolescence of the workers in question.

[Encryptshun]

I would agree with that position. Well-stated.

The "over-the-top" part is, in my view, the unwillingness to contribute even a little towards something (that they may well have had in the past), that the vast majority of normal Americans don't see as the full responsibility of the employer. The demand isn't necessarily over the top in content, it's over the top in its "demandingness".

I really wish they'd all stop pretending this issue is something it's not, though. The 800-lb gorilla that no one on either side wants to discuss is the obsolescence of the product in question.

Agreed with one very minor FTFY point.

[IBCoupe]

I can get with either version. Folks without anything higher than a high school education (and even more so folks without a high school education) are rapidly becoming obsolete.

[Encryptshun]

We are going to need unskilled and lightly-skilled labor for the foreseeable future. So what is the right strategy for keeping that labor pool the right size and incentivizing those folks to "be okay" with the fact that they are never going to make much money doing what they do?

[IBCoupe]

Ensuring that their necessity is recognized by not kicking at them when they try to take collective action might be a start.

[AZhitman]

The management has every right to "kick at" them. They have every right to take their lack of current skills to a more appropriate venue. As long as no EEOC / ADA / etc violations are occurring, the management is under no obligation to pretend that their skills are still relevant.

Like I said before, the Encyclopedia Britannica / Fuller Brush salesmen, buggy whip makers, typewriter assemblers, film processors, watch repairmen, sailmakers, milkmen, diaper service owners, cobblers and carburetor rebuilders have all found a way... it's just progress.

My Dad went through it, and I don't recall any whining. I *DO* recall living in an 800-sq ft house and eating home-grown food for several years while he worked 70-80 hour weeks and went to night school to acquire new skills after he retired from the Navy.

Let's not act like the workers are somehow "oppressed". We all make our choices in life. They made great money ($37/hour for a GED is a nice chunk) for decades. Now, technology has superceded them. SOME chose to keep up. Others didn't. Whether they had the means or the ability to is not our concern.

They may simply have to adapt. I've done it, my Dad did it, and countless others have done it - the "entitlement" mentality isn't an "us" problem, it's a "them" problem.

[IBCoupe]

Chad said, "We are going to need unskilled and lightly-skilled labor for the foreseeable future." Do you disagree with that statement? If not, do you still want to respond the way you did?

If Verizon (or any management, for that matter) doesn't need a particular line of business, it is within their discretion whether to eliminate it. The only thing the union can do is force the employer to negotiate for severance or reallocation of affected workers.

[AZhitman]

Nope. I don't disagree at all. Chad's spot-on.

There will always be that need. I don't know that, in the current economy, those skills will continue to justify $37/hour jobs with 100% medical. Those guys may find themselves maintaining telecommunications equipment in rural areas, or shifting into positions that they're qualified for (residential phone service, local utility maintenance, commercial building connectivity, etc). Some may decide to seek additional certification and training. Some may wind up completely changing jobs. That's the nature of a progressive and rapidly-changing free market.

[szh]

There will always be that need. I don't know that, in the current economy, those skills will continue to justify $37/hour jobs with 100% medical.

That is the reason that I said that the union should not attempt to start negotiations from a position that is going to be considered as unrealistic. It makes some other decisions by Verizon (see below) more likely and that could be a worse outcome.

In the telecom industry, along with most others, the changes in the economy, work conditions, etc., has caused companies to alter the way medical insurance and other benefits are provided. Contracts - union or otherwise - that have older working work condition models as its tenets, are unlikely to survive an encounter with today's reality without changes.

Those guys may find themselves maintaining telecommunications equipment in rural areas, or shifting into positions that they're qualified for (residential phone service, local utility maintenance, commercial building connectivity, etc). Some may decide to seek additional certification and training. Some may wind up completely changing jobs. That's the nature of a progressive and rapidly-changing free market.

Traditional copper land-line phone service to homes (and businesses) is rapidly going away - a recent study I read shows that the number of people without home "phone" service (they use cell phones) is now near 35% in the US. Likely higher in cities where apartments - not owned houses - are more the norm. And wireless-only usage (for home users) and VOIP over fiber and fixed-wireless 802.16 WiMAX, (for business users) is accelerating.

BTW, in major cities (particularly older ones) like New York, Boston, etc., the century+ old paper-wrapped copper from Central Offices to homes and apartments, etc., are degrading badly - I have some amazing pictures of the crap that is down there in the tunnels! Paper-wrapped copper was used to get larger bundles of wire into the actual rubber and metal pipes - all these Nitrogen pressurized (to keep underground water out) pipes is too expensive to maintain. In larger cities, much has been replaced by fiber (think Verizon FIOS), but there is still a long way to go.

Sorry for the long lecture (this is my expertise), but this means that many people who work at traditional Central Office and on distribution of landline telecom connectivity are indeed going to be obsolescent in the future - probably in less than a decade - and they need to "retool" themselves now.

BTW, if Verizon (and other similar land-line telecom firms) decides that the cost of this business is too high, and it becomes a major drain on the more-profitable side of the business (as has also been reported), they might simply shutter it. Then all those people - union and non-union - will be out of work in a bad economy. Unlike what some of newspaper reports have suggested the union is asking for, they are not likely to use "high profits" from the wireless business to continue to support landline business losses - certainly not indefinitely. Not in this unregulated telecom era.

Z

[AZhitman]

...and ^ THAT (seven pages later) was my (probably poorly-presented) point all along.

There's a reason I hold Z in high esteem and respect his near-century of wisdom.

[stebo0728]

I got news for you too, that not alot of people realize. More and more of the "land lines" people are clinging too are actually only analog to the next hub, then they become digital VOIP as well back to the central facility.

And also, I own my home, err rather the bank lets me believe I do, and I have no home phone. Cell only. Its the wave of the future!

[IBCoupe]

Once again, Verizon doesn't need the union's cooperation to eliminate or draw down lines of work. If you need fewer people, then you need fewer people. But you don't stop needing them. Increased obsolescence is not an argument for pay cuts - it's an argument for job cuts.

The union isn't being unreasonable by making that demand, unrealistic as it may be to think Verizon would agree to. It may agree to something less than that demand, but the demand is pretty sensical.

[szh]

I got news for you too, that not alot of people realize. More and more of the "land lines" people are clinging too are actually only analog to the next hub, then they become digital VOIP as well back to the central facility.

Exactly right.

Many Central Offices (which is where your land-line copper wire physically terminates) go immediately on to VOIP (on high-speed fiber and wireless generally) right there - it is too expensive to do it any other way now.

And also, I own my home, err rather the bank lets me believe I do, and I have no home phone. Cell only. Its the wave of the future!

Yes, you are part of that ever-increasing 35% then!

This is turning into a problem for some services, by the way - as a result, for example, the alarm and security industry has been going wireless for a long-time now (my company began providing wireless network connectivity for them since 1998).

Z

[szh]

near-century.

I am older ... I built the Rock of Ages.

Z

[stebo0728]

Is labor not a resource? The values of resources constantly fluctuate. Do we treat labor as a special resource just because our emotions force us to? Why can one resource not experience a loss of value same as any other?

Typewriter repairmen - yes obsolescence was the main issue, but for a while there was still a need, but that decrease in need also translated to a decrease in value of the services rendered, as the serviceman became happy for any business he received and was wiling to accept a decrease in value. My point is obsolescence and decreased value go hand in hand. What if the tables were reversed, and the labor force for this position was drastically thinned, but the demand was still intact. Anyone with a brain seeing a demand increase for their services would most assuredly begin to ask more, barter for more, would we force them to stick to the same value they had previously, tell them that they were doing the same work so they were worth no more, and thats that? Streets are two way in life.

[AZhitman]

Ninja-edit by IB changes the impact of my post just a little, but have we considered that perhaps Verizon was really looking out for these guys by offering them to retain the entirety of their work force, with an admittedly small concession required? And that the alternative would have been a wholesale layoff? And that their rejection and subsequent bad-mouthing of the company thereafter really looks like blatant disrespect?

You've heard the old saw about being "warm and happy in a pile of s***", right?

[szh]

If you need fewer people, then you need fewer people. But you don't stop needing them.

Correct ... unless that side of the Verizon business gets shut completely - which could happen to unprofitable lines of business (even when part of bigger corporations - look at HP for a very recent example!).

Then you don't need any of those people. That would be a worse problem. Hopefully, those people have other skills that can be used in other areas of the businesses.

Increased obsolescence is not an argument for pay cuts - it's an argument for job cuts.

But ... what is the union likely to say/do if Verizon cuts the number of available jobs? Would that answer be different if they maintained the same union pay and benefits (assuming that the contract sticks around) for the people who remain?

This sorta-similar situation arose recently here - the City of San Jose needed to cut jobs from the local Police Force, since the budget simply was not there.

One of the mechanisms used to minimize/reduce the number of jobs cut, was to reduce pay of other officers - the Police Union worked hard to make it work out as best as possible. Same thing happened to San Jose Fire Fighters, as I recall. And, now, some of the officers and fire fighters have been rehired when some budget came back - pay cuts have not yet been restored though (to my knowledge).

My company went through exactly the same process in the economic downturn from the past few years - people took percentage pay cuts (ranging from 5% to 50% - at my level) for many months to allow us to keep more people than not, during a cutback. Much was restored some months back when we restored profitability, but nobody is whole totally - my current compensation is just about the same as it was back in 2004, but my costs (gas, food, medical insurance, etc.) have all gone up in that period.

For example, my medical insurance costs (for myself and family) has risen steadily from about $5,500 a year to its current $12,500 a year - with drops in coverage too (doctor visit copays now cost $40 instead of $10, and prescription co-pays are $60 instead of $20). The insurance companies have raised their prices a lot - not something that my company can do anything about.

Sucks. But it is life.

Z

[AZhitman]

Why aren't you out front of the building, waving a sign and throwing feces at passing cars?

[szh]

Why aren't you out front of the building, waving a sign and throwing feces at passing cars?

We are not unionized ... yeah, that must be the reason!

Z