When the Industrial Revolution was beginning, men with dreams and guts created industries. These industries ran on large amounts of labor. People would labor 12 hours a day for 6 days a week for their pay. And if they were not always working or came in late, they were docked pay. These were part of the working conditions.
Alone came some terrible tragedies - some accidents and mostly fires. Those were the events that gave rise to unions. Mine workers, mercantile laborers and later the factory laborers. Every death showed the flaws in managements style of running a company. People were replaceable and there were more people then jobs.
The laborer had no individual power. Prime ground to develop a union. At first unions fought for better working conditions and more reasonable pay with shorter hours. These concepts came directly out of the owner's profits. And these were the underlying and opposing factions with different agendas.
Move into todays world and unions for the most part have only one objective - to grow at any cost and to demand more of anything at any cost. While the owners (Now stockholders) and management have to show the stockholders a quarterly increase in profit.
Instead of reducing the difference between the highest hourly wage earner and the highest management, CEO, labor (Read the Unions) and management are at odds in how to make the most profit.
As a wage earner, why should they care about the profits of the company? For one reason, their jobs exist because there are profits. But the resentment between the people who make the products and the people who manage the workers just is too strong for a graceful and healthy co-existence. Step in the Unions and the lawyers for management.
Sometimes the unions go on strike. Nobody wins in this case. And sometimes the company goes under in a strike. Then all the workers and management lose their jobs. Personally, I find this end result the most outrageous event. People willing to argue until the death of the company and the loss of everyones' income.
In a more 'charitable world', there would be a limit to the difference between say the highest wage earner and the CEO. And everyone would know that difference. The hope would be that upper management would want to increase the highest wage rate to allow for higher salaries for management, Just does not work out that way.
WHY? Because there are usually many more wage earners than management. Do the math and you soon begin to realize why companies want to buy other companies.
For example: two companies with 200 and 350 employees each merge. The resultant company ends up with maybe 400 employees and only a few less number of management. BUT the savings from this example is the loss of 150 jobs. That means more revenue goes to the bottom line. The consumers who purchase the products of the new combined company get no savings - just the company's bottom line.
The result are bonuses for most of the management and 150 families without their breadwinner. And now the State will provide )at taxpayer's expense) unemployment compensation and food stamps.
The union workers on average make more than non-union laborers. But at a price of the productivity of any company. The union work rules stifle cooperation between job descriptions. You hear a lot of "It's not my area" in a union shop. Or you hear, "Hey! slow down. Are you trying to ruin it for everyone!"
In the end, unions are for the most part just as bad as the managements they oppose. They use their power to get more wages when they are already getting the highest wages in their industry. CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) has the highest wages in the entire industry, yet they demand higher wages. Teachers work less hours today with fewer students and produce poorer results than teachers in the 1950's. Teachers in the 1950 made the smallest profession salaries. Today, teachers make some of the highest salaries. YET, the teacher's union wants more pay and smaller class rooms without guaranteeing any improvement in graduating more student who can read and do simple math. In these cases, the unions have outlived their usefulness.
Now consider miners. The unions have a big part to play towards increasing safety in the mines.
The auto factories of yesterday had employee wage growth that destroyed the United States auto industry. Yet until the factories closed, the unions were fighting for higher salaries and benefits. Made no sense. And it drove the auto manufactures into foreign countries to produce the cars.
In summary, unions are good when safety issues need to be increased or wages are too low. Unions hurt the workers and the economy when their members begin to make too much compared to the cost of foreign production and shipping.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
