Are Unions Obselete?

A few days ago as of the start of this post, I had a conversation with some friends about labor unions. I have been in favor of labor unions for many years, but now, as a result of this conversation, I'm starting to wonder if unions are obselete.

Let me set the scene. Five of my friends were present, but this was one of those conversations that really only involved three of them plus me; the other two did the sit-there-and-look-uncomfortable thing (to say nothing of my one friend's girlfriend, who was also present and had never met any of us). I will identify the three friends in this conversation with letters instead of their names, just in case any of them care about something like that. I'll call them B, F and M. It should be noted that all three of them have had plenty of experience working for a living in factory-type settings.

So here we are. I start, for one reason or another, giving my spiel about labor unions and the need for people to take control of their workplaces and whatever else -- my buddies have heard it all before, and we've discussed unions before to some extent.

The thing is, F is mildly critical of unions, and M criticizes unions perhaps a bit more strongly than F, but B says something that really sticks with me: he says that unions are obselete in today's America.

B says that the large number of plant closings in our area can mainly be traced back to the unions in those plants being too stubborn and asking for too much money for wages, leaving the companies in question unable to make a profit unless they close the union plants. I need to research the cases of the facilities that have closed in our area to try to find out to what extent this is true.

B says that if he were to support unions, he would want them to be more of a mediator between the needs of both the employees and the stockholders/management. F says, "I wouldn't go that far," as to say unions are totally obselete; both F and B both say that everyone, unions and management, are being too greedy.

I made the mistake of even trying to bring up the idea that management and the business class are parasites and that the workers should take control of their workplaces. I've brought this up before, too, with similar lack of enthusiasm. I don't remember there being much comment on this aspect of my critique. There was a brief discussion of the relative necessity of management-type work; B argued for it, and I gave him this: it may end up being necessary for some workers to take the job of overseeing their coworkers' labors, but this does not mean that "management" in the CEOs and pencil pushers really have a legitimate stake in making the widgets in question.

When I blamed the injustice of the economic system in general, I told my friends that I anticipated the conservative argument about corrupt human nature as a dismissal of the idea of changing the system, and that that wasn't my point; I accept that human nature is unable to be ethically perfect, but I fail to see how that should keep us from trying to improve matters. F acknowledged my ... acknowledgement, but he admitted he had to return to the argument about human nature as a reason for doubting the possibility of radical social change for the better.

Fast forward to a couple days after the discussion. I've gotten a book from the library that I'd checked out before, which I think might have something to say. Framed!: Labor and the Corporate Media by Christopher R. Martin says, in a nutshack, that the labor unions are negatively stereotyped and unfairly blamed for bad economic happenings by the way the news media presents news about labor unions and their conflicts with management. [ http://notbyjlhart7.blogspot.com/2007/07/excerts-from-framed-by-christopher-r.html ]

I also found a newspaper article which seems to show a picture of a labor union quite different from what B sees. The article, cited below, tells how a United Auto Workers local union at a Ford plant in Lima, Ohio has made concessions and used less strident tactics in order to actively help make the company more competitive. The article says, page D3:

Lima workers have accepted some outsourcing of jobs and shifted management responsibilities to union employees, allowing the plant to cut non-union staff. The moves save the plant $27 million a year.

However, this same article backs up B on one point -- that spending on employees is costing the company in question [page D3]:

Ford continues to lose money on each car it builds, according to an industry analysis called the 2007 Harbour Report. While Honda and Toyota each earn more than $1,200 on each vehicle, Ford loses $5,200, the report said. The two main reasons for the losses are Ford's increased costs for employee health insurance and benefits and higher costs of low-interest rates needed at Ford to move vehicles from the lots.

More later on this, maybe.

Martin, Christopher R. 2004. Framed!: Labor and the Corporate Media. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rutz, Heather. 1 July 2007. "Lima union evolves." Beacon Journal [Akron, Ohio]. Pages D1, D3.

Here are some links about company and plant closing and firings, some of them in my local area, and the union's role, if any:

http://www.newsnet5.com/money/2692399/detail.html

http://www.policymattersohio.org/media/ABJ_Unions_Struggling_2004_0905.pdf

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/17018813.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010710/ai_n13922892

http://www.uawhonda.com/Responses%20to%20Marysville%20Journal-Tribune%20Editorial%20.htm

http://www.mcall.com/news/specials/bethsteel/all-bethsteel-printingchapter-8,0,1521582.htmlstory?coll=all-bethsteel-nav

http://www.topix.net/forum/com/amr/T30OTKCGPR8HMBKAN