Thursday, February 26, 2015

Why Americans Don't Choose Unions

There are plenty of reasons why so many Americans who don't want to be in unions are, in fact, union members--but Wisconsin has recently shown us that when they're not required to be, many opt out.  Why is that?

From a comment on this NYT article, which came to me via Instapundit via Ann Althouse:
"It is facile, lazy, and simply wrong to blame the anti-union efforts of Reagan, Walker, the Kochs, Whole Foods, Walmart and the like. If you say it is the anti-union policies of the past thirty five years, then you are simply ignoring the fact that when American unions formed in the 19th century and struggled to build in the first third of the 20th century, the anti-union sentiment of the corporations and most politicians was much stronger than today, and the lot of the average worker was harder. Lazy people blame others. If those who originally fought to create our unions had such an attitude, unions would never have been established in the first place. Part of the problem is that the Left failed to criticize unions as their leadership often evolved to having more in common with the bosses than with their own members. As the Left moved away from worker issues in the Sixties to Civil Rights, the anti-war movement, feminism, and cultural issues, blue collar workers became alienated from those who were now largely content to support labor by merely singing Woody Guthrie and Weavers songs. The Left largely came to look down their noses at workers because of attitudes regarding culture and the war, only honoring workers when their issues were tied to something else, such as the largely Mexican-American United Farmworkers Union or access to jobs for women."
People will voluntarily join unions when they believe that the union provides them with something of value.

11 comments:

maxutils said...

No, they actually will not. At least not in numbers that make the union viable. I'm completely pro union, but if you don't make me join? I am absolutely selfish enough to let everyone else pay the dues and do the hard work. Why wouldn't I be? After all, I'd be just one worker… not enough to make a difference either way. I would absolutely be willing to ride those who are willing to pay's coattails, and I would chuckle while doing it, thinking that the one paying were complete suckers. The problem is … get enough people like me, and the union no loner has the power to negotiate, which completely ruins the initial premise. People do not generally pay for a benefit that they may obtain without paying.

Darren said...

Which is a great reason for unions to be responsible to, and accountable to, their members, don't you think?

Again, I think people are smart enough to voluntarily join organizations that they believe in and that work for their benefit. It's certainly how non-profits stay afloat!

maxutils said...

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I agree with that. And. I was a union rep for years trying to get that done. But it is truly a case of making sacrifices for the greater good. If the union doesn't have power, there's no point. If they have compelled membership, they have incentive to be ineffective. So we're in agreement, there. But … that's why it is imperative for people like you and I to take ownership of it as voting members. I will agree with you that the union you are forced to pay dues to is ridiculously ineffective… and I spent a long time making a fuss about it. But if you don't try to change it, you really have no right to complain about it.

Darren said...

Sure I do. I shouldn't be compelled to be a member. They should have to *earn* my financial support, like the AAE does.

maxutils said...

The AAE doesn't negotiate your wage and working conditions. It' calmest completely irrelevant to your actual job … which makes me wonder why you would choose to join that group, rather than the one tat actually does.

Darren said...

You should look into them and see. They're not political and don't waste my money on political things.

Darren said...

I don't object to my (weak) local union; in fact, I'd be a member if I could. It's *they* who won't allow *me* to be a member. It's the state and national unions to which I object.

maxutils said...

On that point, I will agree with you. The state and national unions are unnecessary and solely political …but they also are to a huge part of your fees … I did look in to the AAE, and it basically looks like the same sort of insurance policy/legal help you would get if you just joined the local union, and you're paying separate dues to them which effectively, I would imagine, negates the savings you get from not being part of the local union. Being a Libertarian, I understand that sometimes a point needs to be made, and you are definitely doing it. But I also recognize efficiency.

Darren said...

You are wrong.

The liability insurance I get from AAE is twice what CTA offers, and the policy is in my own name (CTA will cover you under *their* policy at *their* discretion). And even after paying AAE I have money left over from my agency fee rebate.

Ellen K said...

Unions served a purpose when there were no Federal laws to protect workers. Now unions are little more than another economic bloodsucker that takes money from paychecks and uses them for their own purposes rather than the needs of the rank and file. When you look at lobbyists, union leaders and the echelon of public workers, they are insulated from blame, do no real work and reap the cream off the top of every dollar a worker makes. We don't need them.

maxutils said...

I know the logistics of the liability coverage, I do. Believe me. And their are times where I wish I'd had more coverage. I'll accept your numbers, because why wouldn't I, but the larger point is that the main benefit you get from your union is their ability to negotiate your salary and benefits … and by not being a member , you don't get to help them do a better job of it, and you also receive the benefits … besides, if CTA weren't around, how would you know which candidates not to vote for? ;)