Do companies engage in those tactics now? Would they be sued blind if they did? No one said unions never did any good, they just don't anymore. And that doesn't mean they couldn't either.....they just don't.

No one here is ignorant of how and why unions came to be. We are all aware of the abuses heaped upon the American worker at the hands of large corporations. I don't think anyone would dispute any of that. My own father was an IAM member for almost 30 years. I was a member as well while working my way into a career in engineering.

I'm not even saying their time has come and gone. They have a place in corporate America. They have, however, gone way over the line in protecting the listless, lazy, and ignorant. They tie companies' hands with unreasonable work rules, outdated and obsolete job catagories, employee discipline, and other issues.

When I was an IAM member, day after day I could not believe my eyes. Senior lead men who literally did nothing in their work day, and told their managers to fuch off when asked, knowing they were untouchable. Poor work that had to be reworked by others time and time again, coming from the same people who could care less anyway. Once again untouchable. Unqualified people promoted strictly on seniority. Work left undone because "it's not my job". In my specific trade, job titles and responsibilities that had not been updated since the '40's and '50's, keeping uneeded people in uneeded jobs; all per union demands. I could go on and on. Look at what Ford is now willing to do to save itself from its unions. Hell, they pay people full wages that have not even been to work in years. It has to stop. Unions must be reigned in. Not eliminated, but given a healthy dose of reality.

The answer to your question is:

Yes.

I worked for the EKC in Rochester and was, (many years ago) laid off. The company was shoving folks out one door and advertising in other Cities for replacements. At the time, (1970) the economy was getting so bad in Rochester that the New York State Employment office gave office space to unemployed engineers and other professionals. (RAVEST...Rochester Area Volunteer Engineers, Scientists and Technicians). We found out about the ads when some folks would answer them and get response from Kodak. So, at the behest of NYS Employment, I was sent to Kodak Offices to question them about the situation. One executive invited me into his office, I sat down and he told me that if we continued to spread such stories, "I will make sure you never work in this area again".

The IMC still exists. Whether there are other such organizations in other areas I cannot with assurance state. As long as they retain no accessable written records, practices like this can always be denied.

As a result of years of managerial incompetence, the industrial picture in upstate New York is a shadow of its former self. Gone are General Dynamics, Delco, Rochester Products, Pfaudler, Ritter, Consolidated Vacuum, Graflex to name a few, not to mention all of the ancillary little machine shops and suppliers that were adversely affected. Downsized to a point where they are barely viable are Bausch&Lomb and Kodak, the latter down from over 65k employees in the 60s to well under 20k now, and in the process of razing entire manufacturing plants in an effort to reduce their property taxes.

Not all the carnage was the result of unions. Kodak was not unionized, nor were the other powerhouses except for the General Motors plants of Delco and Rochester Products.

Bob, with all due respects that was nearly 40 years ago man. I asked if companies are still doing it. If you honestly believe your scenerio would happen today I suggest you invest in a tape recorder and make yourself a millionaire overnight.

You guys are working from wildly incorrect information. The above statement is untrue. There are some narrow exceptions to the National Labor Relations Act (construction, my industry, is one of them), but for the most part, it is not legal for a company owner to make this decision for the workers. A majority vote is imperative, if a labor union is to represent workers.

This is also untrue. Decertification votes take place all the time. If you are going to engage in discussions about topics like this, please leave the lies out.

Supe, I was speaking of Illinois Law (as was stated at the beginning of the post). I assume you are an expert?

This is sometimes true. Human nature. And also, the nature of the game. All's fair in love and business. Management thinks it has the right to operate with out union interference, and they behave as though they think this. It is quid-pro-quo if unions respond in kind.

The contacts I still have in some corporations for which I have done consulting state off the record that "blackballing" between employers still exists. Can I "prove" it? No. Never claimed that. Do I want to try to prove it? Not interested. Happily out of that jungle. But, to deny the possibility is to deny reality.

One clue that such actions are still around might just be the slow disappearance of the so-called "middle class" from an economic standpoint. Once again, "unprovable", but worthy of consideration. This kind of action is insiduous and clandestine. No one openly speaks of it, and we all have seen what happens to "whistleblowers" when someone tries (and a few are really sincere) to make it public.

My personal viewpoint is that the entire system is heading for an eventual meltdown. When, I can't say. With any luck, I will be pushing up daisies when it happens.

Len, you keep asserting that the time for unions has passed, and that is the topic I began this thread to discuss. Very much on point. And there may be SOME truth to your assertion. Some. But even (and especially) if there is, the repeal of that function and those protections should absolutely NOT be a happy thought to management. Management wishes for less constraints upon their decisions and actions. And if management were always making good, worker-respecting, socially responsible decisions, then this would work fine. But that's nto what happens. In fact, if a corporate CEO faces a choice between a society-friendly and worker-respecting decisions - versus - an opportunity to make megabucks.....his legal responsibility is to choose the megabucks (assuming that his decision is not contrary to law).

If and when these labor protections erode until they are not effective......there will be a backlash that management will enjoy even less than today's status quo.

Workers and their families, once they are sufficiently riled, will win this exchange every time. You live in a democracy, and workers outnumber owners. One if the outcomes of a democracy that I am sad to see anyone decry.

You approach the whole situation as what is best for the employee. This puts you off on the wrong foot right away. You always say things like "we can't trust Corps to do what is best for the employee", to which I say no ****.,.....that's not their purpose and it's not the goal of the system. The goal of the system is to generate goods, services and wealth, Capitalism and supply/demand princviples will see to it that all get their fair share.

And I am not anti-union, I do not want them gone. They are a logical outgrowth of our system, but they should not be able to blackmail corps. The spirit of the free market cannot be messed with for it to work.

I was hessitating posting in this thread but when pat came out in favor of unions, that sealed the deal.
I worked in a union in the early 80's, and I am strongly anti-union because of that experience.
Lazy good for nothing workers got paid the same as the hard working guys. It was against the rules to treat them any differently, so there was no incentive to work hard at all unless it was a personal character trait.

Nurses in a union? The medical profession is already screwed up and that just adds to the general piss-poor level of care.

teachers union? they might as well call themselves teamsters.

Work hard and be a top performer and you don't need a union to protect you.
Or you can be a lazy slob and have a union cover your butt and make sure you get away with doing nothing.

len...

Where is the corporation without the employee?

One would think that even though to some degree adversarial, management/labor should be able to agree on basically what is best for both in the long run.

In our overly controlled economic environment, believing totally in Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" is whistling in the dark.

Out of business, which is my point.

I have no problem with collective bargaining. They should indeed work together.

And I do believe that a pure Capitalist system self regulates just fine, in fact much better than the way we do it now.

Competition is the cure 99% of the time. Competition for emplyees will raise their standards.

Pure capitalism is what existed in the time of the Robber Barons of the late 19th Century. That worked out quite well.

I dunno...I kinda think that 6 1/2, 12 hour day work weeks (time off for Sunday worship), unsafe working conditions, absolute minimum wages and fear of managerial retribution were kind of a downer and disincentive for the average factory worker.

Precisely. Thomas Jefferson warned us about corporations, which were in their infancy in his day. The Sherman Anti-trust Act, and many other federal and state laws, made them what they are today.

It's funny, ...

1) Did you ever notice how many people want:
- their HDTV's for less then $2000 (or is it $1000 now?)
- their cell phones given to them for free with a contract
- A car that performs like a 1960's Ferrari, for the price of a Chevy,
- Their day to day products to have high quality at Walmart prices
- the steady appreciation of their stock based retirement accounts (if they've had the foresight to invest and manage their own savings) - or -
- their employer to absorb all of the risk of the future value of their savings.

2) But yet, when it comes to supplying their own product (specifically labor)
- They want absolute job security
- a steadily increasing income
- fewer hours
- relief from oversight of quality or output

How detached from the reality of cause and affect can people be??? (Fastpat excepted, because he's answered that question many times over for us already.) Where do inexpensive, high quality products come from if people aren't willing to invest the time, effort and risk required in their own day to day productivity?

(PS: I thought that this thread was going to be about old Vincent Price movies! :( )

http://www.vincent-price.com/pitpic.jpg

It is as though we are coordinating by PM so that you can tee the ball up perfectly for me.

Len, and the rest of you, I have said many times that our differences here are blown way out of proportion. It is true. We are all Americans, and we all want the same things for ourselves and our families, and each other. Freedom. Security. Opportunity. Here, and in politics, are differences are caricaturized. In reality, it is only the details we argue about. At a table in a tavern, we would get along very well. With only a very few exceptions.

But there are differences. In my humble opinion, it is about PEOPLE. Not PROFITS. There is a theory that what's good for corporations is good for people. That theory is largely (but still not copmpletely) true, if you substitute the word "business" for the word "corporations." I have no use for a legal loophole that absolves managers from sociopathic decisions. And I think the main thing wrong with our political system is that we allow the corporation, as a kind of non-voting citizen, to participate in our public policy-making process.

Yes I so, Len. Your statement is a bullseye. I approach the whole situation as what is best for the employee, although "citizen" would probably be more accurate. And I support every effort they can make toward the goal of blackmailing the corporations. I am a bit of an anarchist when it comes to the corporate form of the business entity. And quite frankly, I think that one of the most obvious and most pervasive myths in our society is this notion that business should be largely deregulated. Examples abound and I am at a loss to explain why smart people can support this idea. Sure, "supply-and-demand" are the perfect mechanisms for determining prices and quantities. That's a no-brainer. And enlightened self-interest is a POWERFUL force for economic growth. I believe in many aspects of capitalism, and support those two concepts vigorously. But when someone suggests that markets are self-regulating, I chuckle. I chuckle sadly.

Thanks for the ball placement.

It is funnier than you think. Inexpensive and high quality products, and innovations, and valuable services come from..........drum roll please........


the work of people. Working capital is part of the process, but the valuable things you speak of come from WORKERS. Without exception.

Glad you asked.

The operative word is work.

But since you pointed it out, let me rephrase myself...

Where do inexpensive, high quality products come from if people aren't willing to invest the time, effort and risk required in their own day to day productivity to make them at a competitive price and quality?

As far as working capital is concerned, the overwhelming majority of capital in this country is owned by the middle-class. So it all comes back to us -- if I may put myself in the middle-class.