From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: The State of the Unions: Senate Hearing Wednesday
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:39:35 GMT


   Continuation of response 

ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) says:


>
>In a previous article, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) says:
>
>>In article <1g568oINN7oa@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>In a previous article, nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen) says:
>>>
>>>>Here is a press release from U.S. Senator Paul Simon
>>>>
>>>> The State of the Unions: Senate Hearing Wednesday Takes Stock of
>>>>the American Labor Movement In the 1990s
>>>> To: National Desk, Daybook Editor, Labor Writer
>>>> Contact: David Carle of the Office of Sen. Paul Simon,

   pt. II of response

>>>
>>>Also, such so called "cooperative workplace arrangements" ignore
>>>the fact that to utilize new technology workers need to have
>>>the ability to have their rights protected and to have freedom
>>>of speech and assembly so they can complain without penalty when
>>>there are problems.
>>
>>And most progressive companies do this now.  Look at Saturn for
>>example or Motorola, constructive complaints are welcome and encouraged

It is propaganda that constructive complaints are welcome and encouraged
at Saturn -

The book "Japan in the Passing Lane" documents that the kind of Saturn
work ethnic is the work ethic of a "Factory of Despair"

An article in the Feb. 13, 1989 issue of Automotive News shows that
that is true of Mazda in Flat Rock, Mi. So much so that Ford has
now changed the name of Mazda to AutoAlliance to cover up the awful
work conditions associated with the Ford Probe and the Mazda cars.



>>and listened to.  Many times the union does not allow freedom of speech,
>>and actually puts up many barriers to communication between union
>>and non-union workers (you see this will impinge on the union monopoly
>>as the middleman between blue and white collar).

It's not the union that is the barrier to communication between 
workers and employers - 

There is a problem with the current union leadership of U.S. 
unions but that doesn't change the fact that there is also a problem with
the current management - 

neither can be depended on to protect workers rights 

workers have to have the ability to protect their own rights.


>>
>>>
>>>These so calleld "cooperative workplace arrangements" are premised
>>>on the myth that the employer and employee have common interests
>>>with regard to health and safety, wages, working conditions, hours
>>>of work etc. But it has been firmly established in both court 
>>>precedent and in the law, that there must be legislative protection
>>>for workers as employers are pressured to disregard health and 
>>>safety considerations unless there is an outside pressure requiring
>>>them to observe certain standards.
>>
>>Many times outside legislation is required to START certain benefits,
>>but usually are continued even in non-union shops.  The union plays
>>a peripheral role to this, but is not a great motivation force for
>>this change - granted its role 60 YEARS AGO was by in large positive,
>>but managers and decision makers in most firms realize the benefits
>>of having benefits (happy productive workers).  The days of the
>>sweatshop are over (or ending...)
Where did you get this idea?

The sweatshop conditions are back to preunion days in the auto factories
in the Michigan area (where I am from) - the fact that the press doesn't
report the true conditions doesn't make the sweatshops vanish.


>>
>>>
>>>Also the lower the working standards, the worse the productivity -
>>>thus the entire premise announced for the hearings mean that the
>>>hearings can do no useful investigation because they have already
>>>decided their conclusion.
>>
>>Yes, and managers realize this.  They no longer need unions to point
>>it out for them, it is taught in most industrial buimness schools,
>>and to almost anyone even with peripheral interest in the running
>>of a buisiness.  So I agree that the committee discovered nothing
>>new here.

It's not unions that point out bad conditions for management
Rather unions mean that workers have some minimal procedures 
whereby they can challenge arbitrary and harmful management 
practices.

If management were as progressive thinking as is proposed above -
they would stop fighting against workers having rights - whereas
the opposite is the case -- the prpaganda of the enlightened 
management is being used to remove all worker rights - 

No management can be depended on to defend workers

Workers have to have the rights to make it possible for us
to defend ourselves.


>>>>Paul Simon (D-Ill.), who chairs the subcommittee and will chair the
>>>>hearings.  "Strong unions have much to contribute to the high-wage,
>>>>high-skill job strategies that are vital to our national economic
>>>>future."
>>>
>>>This shows the result of having censored the real history of how
>>>of the UAW. Workers in the UAW fought their union leadership in
>>>order to establish the basic union gains like COLA (cost of 
>>>living adjustment), pensions (the UAW international leadership
>>>was trying to settle for something that workers deemed very inadequate
>>>and it was thru their criticism of the leadership that they won
>>>pensions), wages that made it possible to survive (wages were very
>>>low before the hard fight of workers in the 1940's), etc. Thus
>>>so called "strong unions" leaves out that workers need democratic
>>>rights to fight both their union leadership and management in order
>>>to have any minimal rights to fight for better conditions. 
>>
>>
>>However, what REALLY happens in many high-tech facilities (I have
>>worked in them) is that the union tries to pidgeonhole people to
>>overspecialize (only one or two people know how to operate a machine
>>and if they want workplace diversity - tough), and that workers
>>who disregard authority (mild insubordination) or do a poor job
>>are not penalized or even allowed to be demoted.  Thus unions have
>>become synonomous with lazy overpaid workers loafing along.

Job classifications is not "the union..pidgeonhole people to overspecialize"
It's a safety consideration which makes it possible for a workers to 
have a particular job that he can know and can also know what the 
problems are that need to be dealt with.

Mazda for example has gotten rid of classifications and the result is
that workers are switched around at whim in arbitary manner and there
are lots of injuries - 

Also, workers in american factories are working under conditions
like military discipline - what management says, no matter how unreasonable
cannot be challenged - only with union rights can a worker be able
to deal with the fact that supervision is interested in pushing the 
product out - supervision is neither concerned with a good product nor
safe or decent working conditions. 

Workers need to be able to challenge such authority -
And to do so they need to have union rights.


>>
>>In this respect, I do feel that unions have NOT been doing their
>>jobs, and they do have a role to play in high tech high wage
>>economies, but if they cannot be innovative they had better get
>>out of the way!

What is being proposed here is that unions be another layer of 
supervision - whereas the union model is that the union official
should be like a lawyer for the worker who is trying to uphold his
rights.


>>>
>>>Again this committee is not proposing any investigation into what
>>>the problems workers have today with their unions and management.
>>>But it seems that instead people have been invited to support a 
>>>predetermined line.
>>
>>I agree, and it is mostly due to the way congress works.  But do you
>>honestly think that they would investigate any better than their commitee
>>decided?

There are probably almost a hundred or more volumes of the La Follette
Committee investigations into labor spy activities in the U.S. unions
- that was a U.S. Senate investigation and it helped set the basis for
workers to have real unions for a brief period of time.

So I do in fact believe that there is a model that the Senator could follow
the model of the La Follette Committee Hearings.


>>I think the unions and management should form a new cooperative pact
>>to increase productivity, efficiency with corresponding increases in
>>wages and benefits (more secure workplace).
>>
>>>>[stuff deleted about who is speaking]
>>>
>>>How can any meaningful reforms be proposed when there is no 
>>>investigation into the serious problem that currently exists
>>>with both unions in the U.S. and with the current state of how
>>>the labor laws have been voided by the large corporations getting
>>>agencies like the National Labor Relations Board to rubber stamp
>>>their anti worker activities.
>>
>>No action will be taken until both sides see need and benefits of
>>reform (Unions and Management need to act in cooperation to make
>>the industrial sector a win-win situation - it is possible but only 
>>after discarding the current 'I win you lose' attitude by both
>>union and management in lobor talks!)
>>
>>

Such supposed "reform" is a mirage as long as management can always
fire the worker if the worker does something that management 
doesn't want the worker to do.

So there is no "cooperation" where the boys and the boss are in the same 
boat but one is rowing and the other is 
telling him where to row
>>
>>
This so called "cooperation" is merely the propaganda to lower
wages and to remove all labor rights.



>>Summary:  I agree that unions do have a role to play in the 21st
>>century economy, but they had better discard ways of thought that
>>worked 60-90 years ago and update to the modern age.  They should 
>>realize that they are a service, with their cusztomers being the
>>workers, and should work to provide the best benefits (through
>>negotiations) and training (by use of dues and possible government
>>subsidies) to allow thie CUSTOMERS to prosper.  The companies should
>>realize that the adversarial relationship cannot work, but it will
>>take goodwill on both sides and fair compromise to work out equitabl

But the adversarial relationship is the actual relationship
is the actual relationship and all the words to the contrary only
are the tools of the swindler - 

GM sure has adopted a new relationship - it is closing down all its
factories where workers have union rights and shifting all its
substandard Saturn type factories -

the same with Ford and its Mazda factory - only it threatens workers
at Ford that unless they sign local agreements accepting the 
substandard working conditions Ford will throw them out of work -

these are really *cooperative* relationships


>>
>>Also the operation of unions on the shop floors will have to change,
>>allowing poor performers or insubordinate workers to be let go and
>>moved elsewhere (because much of the source of poor performance 
>>may just be the environment you are working in).

To the contrary - what you are proposing will doom American 
industry to the most inefficient management practices - 

its workers who produce the goods not management -

In England at the beginning of the industrial revolution the most
inefficient management practices were encouraged because workers 
had no rights --

that is what you are proposing as the way forward - unlease 
management to use unbridled power to turn workers into slaves
and to turn out shoddy goods 

But its not to go backwards because the propaganda wind 
doesn't allow any reality or history into the public line
that is being put forward - as in the recent so called 
economic forum.

>>
>>Anyway I hope to see a Clinton administration reform the unions to
>>make them a more positive force and less a bitchy pit bull (as well
>>as manageament).

Clinton has made clear he has no regard for worker rights -
Just as the Senator from Illiniois has made clear-

And the press makes any discussion or debate on these issues 
impossible as only management's view of the "happy worker" is 
allowed to be presented.

ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.misc