[Lemmy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well I would say first that the workers, and especially the union, would probably love the opportunity for more work on Saturdays: more paid hours, more overtime and more employees in their union.

Actually, unions work because they restrict employment. They're not likely to welcome a larger membership.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well I would say first that the workers, and especially the union, would probably love the opportunity for more work on Saturdays: more paid hours, more overtime and more employees in their union.

Actually, unions work because they restrict employment. They're not likely to welcome a larger membership.

Yeah, that's it. Unions have decertification drives, where they try to get people to leave the union. Any union I've ever been a part of always wanted to have a larger membership - mo money for union leaders if nothing else, but also more sway over wages. And a few of them even believe that brotherhood of man stuff.

By Lemmy's reasoning, the ideal union has a membership of one. I guess that's the kind of reasoning living in an ivory tower leads to.

[BeaverFever]

I think what Lemmy's referring to is more commonly found in "guild" type organizations, where the workers are self-employed, for example some skilled trades like carpenters, contractors, etc who have no common, permanent employer. But it should be noted that this is also common in a lot of professions, for example the College of Physicians and Surgeons is sometimes accused of deliberately rationing their supply.

Every piece of union literature I've read, bemoans declining Union membership and encourages unionization of places like wal-mart. After all, Unions don't (or claim not to) beleive in wages driven by "supply and demand" forces of the market, they believe in "living wages" and "social wages" etc that ensure minium living standards and recognize seniority, overtime hours worked, etc. <--- this last point may have some importance, if the members of a particular union want to protect their overtime hours by restricting hiring, but that's usually an internal matter in a particular scenario and I wouldn't think that would affect the overall position of unions in general.

[andyt]

"I think what Lemmy's referring to is more commonly found in "guild" type organizations" So why bring it up here? It's not relevant to what you were talking about.

I guarantee that there isn't one traditional labor union in Canada that would attempt to stop their employer from increasing work and thus hiring more of their members. That would include any construction carpenter's union. Professional associations are a totally different matter.

I have a soft spot for how Western Europe organizes itself, and my understanding is that even in those worker's paradises, the PO has been privatized in most countries. So if they can do it, maybe we could too. I gotta say I miss symbols of government tho, like the post office, railways, telephone, etc.

[BeaverFever]

Agree, but controversy over employers deliberately hiring young workers to reduce the amount of OT being consumed regularly by senior workers "sounds" familiar to me as something that has occurred. Expansion is one thing, but if the union is top-heavy with senior workers, I could see them viewing that scenario as a corporate plot.

Anecdotally, I have known a few people who told me they tried to get into the skilled trades but found it tough to get a construction job without being in a union and tough to get in a union without knowing somebody. But beyond their anecdotes, I'll admit that I don't know what the reality is.

[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Anecdotally, I have known a few people who told me they tried to get into the skilled trades but found it tough to get a construction job without being in a union and tough to get in a union without knowing somebody. But beyond their anecdotes, I'll admit that I don't know what the reality is.

It was always that way, even when I worked in construction. But in those days, everybody was union. Now, I believe a lot of construction is non-union, probably easier to get hired there. And with the recent boom in construction, it should have been pretty easy to get on. I think another difference is that now people get training first, then try to get a job. When I was working, you got hired on and trained on the job. Much easier on the wallet.

[Lemmy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I think what Lemmy's referring to is more commonly found in "guild" type organizations, where the workers are self-employed, for example some skilled trades like carpenters, contractors, etc who have no common, permanent employer. But it should be noted that this is also common in a lot of professions, for example the College of Physicians and Surgeons is sometimes accused of deliberately rationing their supply.

Unions inflate wage in two ways: collective bargaining and membership restriction. That's what makes unions work. If you have a membership and negotiate collectively, the restricted supply of labour drives up the wage. The single, fundamental purpose of a union is to restrict the supply of labour. That's what unions do.

[RUEZ]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The single, fundamental purpose of a union is to restrict the supply of labour. That's what unions do.

Interesting. I've been in a number of unions in my life and currently am a member of the CAW, and I can't say I agree with you.

[tritium]

My 2 cents for what it's worth.

I don't like the idea of privatization of a Crown Corporation like Canada Post.

However, about the only time I use Canada Post is Christmas time to send parcels. Everything else is digital, email, fax or UPS/FedEx.

All my bills are electronic, via email. "paperless, help the enviroment"

Canada Post is going the way of the News Paper, obsolete.

[BeaverFever]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Unions inflate wage in two ways: collective bargaining and membership restriction. That's what makes unions work. If you have a membership and negotiate collectively, the restricted supply of labour drives up the wage. The single, fundamental purpose of a union is to restrict the supply of labour. That's what unions do.

They may try to restrict the supply of non-union labour, but by increasing their own numbers, they actually increase not only their bargaining power, but their political influence.

[Lemmy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Interesting. I've been in a number of unions in my life and currently am a member of the CAW, and I can't say I agree with you.

You don't need to agree with me. This isn't a matter for debate. It's a fact. The reason unions work is they restrict the supply of labour and drive up the wage rate. Grab any old 1st-year econ text book.

[Lemmy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

They may try to restrict the supply of non-union labour, but by increasing their own numbers, they actually increase not only their bargaining power, but their political influence.

Of course, the larger the union, the more its power, provided there are still non-unionized workers too. There comes a point at which the union can be too big to be effective. There must be "us and them" for the union be effective. If everyone is in the union, then the market wage rate, not the union wage rate, will prevail.

[RUEZ]

Lemmy Lemmy:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Interesting. I've been in a number of unions in my life and currently am a member of the CAW, and I can't say I agree with you.

You don't need to agree with me. This isn't a matter for debate. It's a fact. The reason unions work is they restrict the supply of labour and drive up the wage rate. Grab any old 1st-year econ text book.

The reason wages go up is because of collective bargaining, and the strike that follows when wages aren't raised.

[andyt]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Lemmy Lemmy:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Interesting. I've been in a number of unions in my life and currently am a member of the CAW, and I can't say I agree with you.

You don't need to agree with me. This isn't a matter for debate. It's a fact. The reason unions work is they restrict the supply of labour and drive up the wage rate. Grab any old 1st-year econ text book.

The reason wages go up is because of collective bargaining, and the strike that follows when wages aren't raised.

Sure, but that only works because the strike prevents others from taking that job, or if labor is in short supply.

So Lemmy has a point in demonstrating his knowledge of labor economics theory. But his reply was to answer

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well I would say first that the workers, and especially the union, would probably love the opportunity for more work on Saturdays: more paid hours, more overtime and more employees in their union.

To which

Lemmy Lemmy:

Actually, unions work because they restrict employment. They're not likely to welcome a larger membership.

Which goes to show that even someone supposedly intelligent can say really stupid things. Especially if they try to make the real world conform to their theories.

You're CAW - would your union object to the auto companies adding extra lines, hiring more workers, because demand for cars went up? Doesn't the CAW, like most unions also try to unionize workers not directly working in the auto industry?

[BeaverFever]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Of course, the larger the union, the more its power, provided there are still non-unionized workers too. There comes a point at which the union can be too big to be effective. There must be "us and them" for the union be effective. If everyone is in the union, then the market wage rate, not the union wage rate, will prevail.

I don't know about that...look at Europe and Scandinavia, where the unionization rates are in the 70%-90% range. Wages are high in those countries and unions are very powerful, politically and economically. In countries like Canada where unionization is only something like 24% including the public sector, it doesn't make sense that unions would restrict their membership and allow non-union companies to outgrow them and make them less relevant. Look at the CAW's constant attempts to unionize Toyota plants.

Collective bargaining and political activity are far more central to union objectives than manipulation of market wage rates, over which they have only limited impact.