Answering a Friend's Challenge
It was in an appendix to William Rusher's book How To Win Arguments, where I read Bill Buckley's observation that the same traits which make one effective in debate can also become problematic in personal relationships. As was often the case, Buckley was right of course, which is why I approach the following with some trepidation. My dear friend, a disabled vet and fellow military retiree, Bob Lee, is a source of inspiration to me. Some 25 years ago he was my teacher. He became my colleague, and over time, my best friend. Besides, he agrees with me so often that it is downright scary just how right he is most of the time.
Bob and I are members of a little group of folks online to who like to kick current issues and topics around for our mutual edification and amusement. The topic of the standoff in Wisconsin has occupied no small amount of interest in the group, and Bob has weighed in with his own experience:
I am not, not, not a fan of unions. They exist because there is a need for them. How do I know that? I worked at a plant where the union tried to organize us. The management told us we didn't need a union to protect us. We believed them and voted down the union. Two weeks later all our jobs were shipped overseas to Haiti. No business will voluntarily pay a dime more to it's workers than it has to, so the workers have to take care of themselves.
A pragmatist rather than an ideologue, Bob has as many questions on this topic as he does opinions. On Governor Walker's general approach:
His denial he is destroying public employee unions is disingenuous at best. Not only will the state deny the use of collective bargaining to seek pension and health benefits but WILL limit collective bargaining for their wages to cost of living increases ONLY.
On the raison d'etre for unions in the first place:
The unions are not organized to balance the local budget, they are organized to serve their members. To serve the union members, not the management. So they are acting for their members.
An historian by nature and training, Bob asks:
Local politician/professionals like the mayor and police chief, etc. are paid based on whatever they vote themselves and can ram through their city councils. Teachers, from what I understand, and I admit I'm not well informed, aren't paid that well, while school administrators, who do not teach, are paid as much as four or more times as much as teachers. Where are the salaries actually going? ...As far as “putting money in the classroom,” where the hell is the money going now? In America we have the most expensive education system in the world but we are way down on the list of educated nations. I don't know where the money is going but the teachers aren't getting it and the brick and mortar classrooms are as often as not in disrepair or temporary buildings...
Bob has graciously allowed me to post his comments in this forum. It's not my intent to shred Bob's points, in part because I suspect his opinions are held by a large swath of people. In fact, in a subsequent exchange, Bob conceded as ironical the fact that unions have become big businesses themselves. And that, folks, is irony on a colossal scale. In her tireless effort to unearth information that many would like to keep buried, Michelle Malkin found that the same unions who can turn on the tears faster than Jimmy Swaggert lavished enormous sums on themselves and their friends. In nearby Ohio, the education association took $23 million in forced dues from its members and used it to increase the size of its own staff. They donated $1.6 million to Democratic campaigns in the 2010 elections and threw out five-figure checks like Mardi Gras beads to other unions and friends in Oregon, Colorado, and even a progressive think tank in Ohio which enjoys funding by one George Soros. Nationally, the NEA funneled $13 million in forced dues to the AFI-CIO, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, Media Matters, and Health Care for America Now. Maybe this helps answer Bob's question about why the schools are falling apart.
If not, consider the Detroit News from 2007 which exposed the dirty little secret about union boss salaries. “A Detroit News analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data revealed a growing pay divide between labor bosses and the rank and file who pay their salaries with their dues,” wrote Mike Wilkinson and Ron French. What kind of salaries? Five officers from the United Food and Commercial Workers in Michigan brought in over $200,000 in 2006. That same year, the executive director of the Michigan Education Association, brought home a salary of $334,174. From 2002 to 2006, the head of Local 79 of the Service Employees Union in Detroit suffered from a salary that only increased 25 percent to a paltry $155,874. Meanwhile, back on the east coast, the New York State United Teachers President Richard Iannuzzi currently hauls in over $300,000 per year while his organization is $117 million in the red. For his part, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, whose $137,092 salary is dwarfed by these union leaders, is vilified as the pure epitome of greed and wealth-induced callousness.
But what of the teachers themselves? Much has been made of the fact that the average salaries of Wisconsin's public employees exceeds the average salaries of the people in the private sector who pay them. The folks at Politifact rate the difference at $81,000 (including salary and benefits) for public sector employees versus $66,000 for private sector employees. Fox Business Network's Eric Bolling says the difference is $89,000 to $38,000. We are told that this is an apples to oranges comparison, since a higher percentage of public employees have college degrees than the public at large.
A 2002 study by M. Scott Niederjohn [pdf format], a then-doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Department of Economics addressed the issue directly. His study used U.S. Dept. of Census data to examine over 15,000 Wisconsin employees, 775 of which were schoolteachers. His analysis factored in data such as weekly wage, union status, education, weeks worked, occupation, and whether the employee worked in the private or public sector. Comparing wages earned by the state's public school teachers with that earned by private school teachers, Niederjohn found:
These data clearly show that public school teachers are compensated more handsomely than their private school peers. In fact, the average public school teacher with a bachelor’s degree makes about 23 percent more than his or her private school counterpart.
And they are protesting and making demands on the people who support them? People who somehow manage to get by on smaller salaries?
Adding significantly more weight to the Wisconsin issue yesterday was film maker Michael Moore, who dropped by to cheer the protestors on. "Right now the Earth is shaking and the ground is shifting under the feet of those who are in charge,” he said. Demonstrating, in equal parts, total economic ignorance and zero appreciation of irony, Moore said, "America is not broke," and added that, "the country is awash in wealth and cash ... It has been transferred in the greatest heist in history from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich."
So Bob, my friend, my brother, I respectfully submit that public sector unions are doing to Wisconsin what private sector unions did to the automobile and airline industry. The term “collective bargaining” is totally appropriate today because it is spearheaded by the collectivist movement. Total membership in unions today hovers around 12 percent, I believe. The unions and their cohorts in government would like to increase that percentage through such ideas as doing away with secret ballots when it comes time for employees to vote on whether or not to unionize. If it is such a good deal, why should they care whether the ballots are secret or not? They force members to pay union dues which are then used to pad the union's coffers, pay union chief salaries that dwarf even that of governors, and then dole out remaining resources to left leaning causes and Democrat politicians. In short, they are undemocratic. In fact, they are doing their best to undermine the will of the people as expressed by the latest election results. When they have their way, unfettered, they feed off a business or a government until there is nothing left. And when they don't have their way, they stage the sort of spectacle we see in Wisconsin. You can call this many things,..but looking out for the workers is not one them.
In short, as Bill Whittle over at Big Government said:
It's the people with the Gadsden flags, the ones calling for less government that are on the side of the future, not the public sector union members living in the past to preserve benefits and entitlements that now other people have to pay for. These public sector unions actually have become the old corrupt alliance of money and political power that they themselves were created to destroy.
Now sir, you have the floor if you wish.
- Comment (65)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
First, what correlation was there between the no vote on the union and his company's shipping jobs to Haiti? Had the vote gone the other way, I could understand. But it didn't. So what's his point?
As for his contention that, absent union pressure, employers will not pay a dime more to their employees than they have to, well....duh. They will pay what the market is in their industries - or they will fail under the pressure of more efficient competitors.
[This comment has been redacted by an editor.]
Edited on Mar 7, 2011 at 6:59amOct '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
I think unions are fine with four restrictions: 1. no public employee unions; 2. all union membership is voluntary; 3. Unions represent only their members and no other employees; and 4. Employers are free to ignore unions and/or their negotiations.
Public employee unions are simply a conflict of interest.
All persons should be free to employ and be employed as arranged between the employer and the employee.
Whatever arrangements made between the union and the employer should be apply only to union members; i.e. senority rules do not apply to non-union employees.
Employers have the right to refuse any and all demands made by the union. The unions, of course, are free to withdraw their employees from service.
With these restrictions, the union would have to offer something to the employer that the employer may not get from independent employees; i.e. extra work hours, training, reliable supply of workers, etc.
Edited on Mar 6, 2011 at 8:31pmRe: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Hold on Kenneth.
First, as I understand it, the correlation was that the employees voted against unionizing on the assurance that they didn't need a union's protection. Their vote of confidence in the company was thereafter rewarded with pink slips.
Second, as to Bob's intellect: I read earlier today where someone made some gratuitous assertions about your family and you justifiably jumped back. You don't know Bob. You don't know the extent of the injuries he incurred while on active duty,...disabilities that require a tackle box of meds and oxygen every day to help him both physically and mentally. And he'd do it again to help defend the rights you enjoy on this site and elsewhere. I don't get my back up easily, but taking that kind of shot at a man who has given so much of himself that simply functioning day to day is a challenge is over the line. Disagree on the merits if you like, but save the half-assed cheap shots for someone else. It's not flying here.
May '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
How about no one else. It would make everyone's experience on Ricochet so much more enjoyable.
Dec '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Dave Carter:
First, as I understand it, the correlation was that the employees voted against unionizing on the assurance that they didn't need a union's protection. Their vote of confidence in the company was thereafter rewarded with pink slips.
· Mar 6 at 8:43pm
If the company chooses to ship jobs overseas, union or no, the jobs are likely to go.
You can ask Rob Long about the estimable David Young, hired by the WGA because of his union organizing experience:
"David Young, 38, the apparel industry labor leader directing the union-organizing campaign at Los Angeles jeans maker Guess Inc., has resigned. No replacement was named by the union, which is called Unite. Young... said he quit 'because of the failure of the union to provide the promised support and resources for the Guess campaign.' He declined to elaborate... The campaign at Guess, the biggest apparel manufacturer in Los Angeles, and at its contractors has become one of the nation's highest-profile organizing drives. Guess recently announced it would shift most of its production from Los Angeles to Mexico and South America, but it said the labor situation was not a major factor in its decision.
Jul '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Andrea Ryan
How about no one else. It would make everyone's experience on Ricochet so much more enjoyable. · Mar 6 at 9:11pm
Yes, please. I personally have no interest in paying even as little as we do on a monthly basis to watch others be condescended to or to experience it myself. If the only thing you can do is trash another's viewpoint, try Huffington Post.
Dec '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
"The unions are not organized to balance the local budget, they are organized to serve their members. To serve the union members, not the management. So they are acting for their members."
That's the reason that private sector unions should exist where workers choose to join them, but it's also an argument against public sector unions. In the private sector, some of the interests of labor diverge from those of management and the shareholders (and some of the interests of management diverge from those of shareholders), so there is a reason for them to sit on opposite sides of a negotiating table.
In the public sector, labor is not supposed to view "shareholders" as having different interests: public sector employees are supposed to have the same interests as the public they serve. Civil service protections are supposed to be the means for protecting the workers from dangerous or exploitative work rules and from political retribution. Public sector unions create collusion between the unions and the politicians that are "management" to work against the interests of the "shareholders."
Sep '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Dave,
If you read the history of the steel industry in North America (something Bob would likely find enjoyable), the minimills like Nucor and Chaparall ate the integrated mills' lunches by focusing on the production process ruthlessly while paying their employees well. The quote I saw from the CEO of Nucor (a guy who eschewed a secretary and answered his own phone) was that big steel ended up with trade unions that drove them into the ground because the 2 sides "deserved each other". His central point was that crappy management creates unions. Continued crappy management creates insufferable unions.
I don't think anyone wants to take away the rights of workers to create private, voluntary trade unions but I don't think, in the end, that a worker can hang his hat on the guarantee of a union. I'm not sure a union vote would have prevented a move of the plant to Haiti, though it may have made it more onerous for the company to do, at least in the short term.
Edited on Mar 6, 2011 at 9:45pmRe: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Stuart Creque: "The unions are not organized to balance the local budget, they are organized to serve their members. To serve the union members, not the management. So they are acting for their members."
That's the reason that private sector unions should exist where workers choose to join them, but it's also an argument against public sector unions. In the private sector, some of the interests of labor diverge from those of management and the shareholders (and some of the interests of management diverge from those of shareholders), so there is a reason for them to sit on opposite sides of a negotiating table.
In the public sector, labor is not supposed to view "shareholders" as having different interests: public sector employees are supposed to have the same interests as the public they serve. Civil service protections are supposed to be the means for protecting the workers from dangerous or exploitative work rules and from political retribution. Public sector unions create collusion between the unions and the politicians that are "management" to work against the interests of the "shareholders." · Mar 6 at 9:34pm
All reasonable points, as far as I can see.
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Pseudodionysius: Dave,
...The quote I saw from the CEO of Nucor (a guy who eschewed a secretary and answered his own phone) was that big steel ended up with trade unions that drove them into the ground because the 2 sides "deserved each other". His central point was that crappy management creates unions. Continued crappy management creates insufferable unions.
· Mar 6 at 9:45pm
Exploitation begets more of the same then.
Sep '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
One other additional observation on teacher's unions. Because the money is in administration, many teachers will try to move into administration and you know what that means: a glut of administrative positions as this is a great way to reward a teacher and getting them a bigger pay packet. Of course, they'll have to get a semi marxist theorizing advanced degree in education (at least a master's degree) to qualify.
Jul '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Well, Dave, I've always admired you, so I will take your chastisement as warranted.
Apologies.
Oct '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Both of which give consumers crappy products - like the Chevy Volt - which no one is interested in purchasing. You might say that the Chevy Volt is to GM what public schools are to educational bureaucracies, except that the general public isn't compelled to purchase the former.
May '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Dave, if your friend, Bob, reads this please let him know that there's no one else on Ricochet that would have said such a horrible thing as Kenneth did. It really is a safe place to discuss thoughts and opinions and have others disagree with civility and respect. And maturity.
I enjoyed reading this post, Dave, and was thinking since we all so frequently agree with each other it's nice to hear from another perspective. Thank you so much for sharing your conversation. I thoroughly agree with what Stuart has written and I hope Bob understands that that is a better depiction of how we interact here.
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Kenneth: Well, Dave, I've always admired you, so I will take your chastisement as warranted.
Apologies. · Mar 6 at 9:52pm
Accepted
Edited on Mar 6, 2011 at 10:07pmJun '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
There is a problem in trying to evaluate the contribution of unions to the overall trend in wage increases. If we look to the start of the industrial revolution what we see is mostly agricultural work that paid little in wages. As the industrial revolution began to accelerate wages increased because industrialists needed to attract workers away from farms. Between then and now industrial growth can be classed as exponential. It is an indisputable fact that supply and demand played a role in the price of labour. But it is also indisputable that "real" wages have increased consistently and steadily since those early days of the industrial revolution. Specialization is the reason for this sustained increase. The more specialized worker has a higher skill level, produces more, and earns more. These efficiencies are only possible through the application of capital. A worker today has no more productive hours at his disposal than a worker had in the early 1800s. Yet todays worker gets paid a substantially higher real wage than his forebear. This is made possible because some capitalist invested in labour enhancing capital equipment, thus making today's worker more productive and hence more valuable to his enterprise.
Sep '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Back in the Pleistocene, when I was an engineer, I belonged to a "white collar" union. I'm glad I did. It really did protect us from getting abused by management, especially when the company was sold to a larger corporation. The new management was used to ordering their white collar workers to do some crazy things, but they couldn't do that to us.
I also don't think teachers, as individuals, are all that highly compensated. I know some people who are, and teachers aren't in that league.
In private enterprises, unions protect workers against being gouged by abusive management. But public sector unions are in a different situation. In the public sector, on one side of the table are politicians whose elections are funded largely by the unions, and on the other side are the union bosses, whose wages and benefits are at least indirectly determined by these self same politicians. This system doesn't just encourage corruption, it's corruption itself.
Edited on Mar 6, 2011 at 10:10pmSep '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
Oh, and what Stuart Creque said.
Dec '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
I'm not so sure of this. My Dad was the President of his teachers' union local and never indicated any desire to move into Administration.
My Mom was in the SEIU as a county employee for a number of years and did become a manager, so she saw both sides of union membership. But she refused offers to move to the top of her department into a politically appointed or elective position.
My wife is an RN and went from unionized bedside nurse to non-union quality manager in the same hospital -- and suffered abuse as a manager from her boss. She went back into the union as a telephone advice nurse, preferring union protections to non-union stresses.
Jul '10
Re: Answering a Friend's Challenge
The Niederjohn study is a work of art, it answered all of my outstanding questions and got to the total compensation comparison, real apples to apples. My first job was in a union shop, and never again. When it was time to raise a family I moved to a right to work state, although other collectivist issues were more to the fore at the time. Not much risk of unionization in my field.
The unions have made cause with the Dems and provide Dems like Obama with private armies that they can deploy around the country on missions of mischief and intimidation. A friend of mine lives down the street from a major Dem figure, and that Dem's house gets used as a staging area to consolidate astroturf resources and prep them for the day's mission. So you get up and pick up your paper, and there's a mob all in the same color tee-shirt about to be bused to their assignment getting briefed by megaphone.
Finally, the taxpayers have organized as well. Tea, anyone?
Edited on Mar 6, 2011 at 10:36pm