From: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: The State of the Unions: Senate Hearing Wednesday
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:51:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


au329@cleveland.freenet.edu reponding, 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:
>>
>>   continuation of response by ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben): 
>>
>>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,
>>>          202-224-7115
>>
>>>   "Labor unions are one key to the cooperative workplace
>>>arrangements we will need to fortify our productivity," said Sen.
>>
>>So called "cooperative workplace arrangements" are the denial of workers
>>having any rights to be in unions. They are a reversal of the 
>>lessons of the LaFollette Committee Hearings of the 1930's that 
>>company unions penalize workers who try to have any rights over
>>their conditions of employment. Thus this hearing seems to be
>>a practice in "forgetfulness" of the history of American labor
>>legislation.
>
>Times change and so do attitudes.  That was over 60 years ago, all
>the people who ran the committee are DEAD now, or VERY VERY old.
>Many unions have become very corrupt in that time, and very
>un democratic, and many non union shops have also become extremely
>nice places to work (mind you not ALL of either, but manageament
>in many newer companies realized that happy workers mean that
>unions and their restrictions that artificially over specialize
>workers and cause work disruption through strikes will not be
>very welcome by the workers).
>

But the fact that employers need to get as much work as out
of their employees as possible, and that employees need to
protect their health and lives -- these haven't changed.
i.e. the different interests between employees and 
employers have not changed.

If employers have decided as you say that they have an interest
in their workers well being, then they would not fight
tooth and nail agains workers being in unions as they do.


I have just gotten the 5 minute notice from freenet so I will
have to continue this response later.
                       ronda


>>
>>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
>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).
>
>>
>>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...)
>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>>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.
>
>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!
>
>>
>>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?
>
>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!)
>
>
>
>
>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 equitable
>dealings.
>
>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).
>
>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).
>
>-- 
>+-------------------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+
>| Brent L. Irvine         | NE PER INGENIUM | The above personal opinions     |
>| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | MEUM SED DEI    | can be yours too for only $50!  |
>+-------------------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+
>

-- 
Ronda Hauben  Amateur Computerist Newsletter
P.O. Box 4344   other email addr:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:9268 sci.electronics:21020