"A union brings democratic practices to the work environment."

Do workplaces need democratic practices? I've never worked for a company that threatened my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness -- mostly, they tend to secure the blessings of (financial) liberty to myself and my posterity by paying me an amount that I find satisfactory. If they didn't, I could always cry oppression, but it would be more mature for me to just find a better job. And if I had a higher estimation of my worth as an employee than any employer, I might consider my own estimate incorrect.

It's a fallacy to apply your political principles to anything outside of politics. If you want to work for a business that runs itself like a country, work for GM (and pray for your pension).

The democracy in the workplace is you are free to leave and join another company at any time. This is a good thing. Any attempt to make it harder for employers to employ people always pushes back by raising unemployment. (See the minimum wage)

-

Democracy is probably useful for any institution with absolute power -- if there's a group that has the right to imprison or kill me, I'd rather they derive that right from the will of the people. But if all an institution can do is give me money in exchange for work, or give me stuff I want in exchange for money, democracy is an imposition that makes them less free. If a transaction can only happen with the consent of person A and person B, why on earth would you want Mob C to interpolate itself between them? The only positive results from that would flow to members of C or to parties that have coopted it.

"...cannot expect management to treat everyone equally and fairly..."

The best manager I've ever worked for once told me that he believed in treating people fairly, but definitely not equally. I think he had a good pont.

Why would it not be democratic enough that you can quit your job if you are unhappy with the work conditions?

Of course there may be the concern that you would have no opportunity to find another job. However, then I don't understand why it is deemed fair for society to dump the social responsibility on the enterprises. Is it the companies fault that you cannot find another job, or is it maybe your "fault" that you lack the qualifications?

Ultimately society pays anyway: if the company has to overpay the inefficient workers, it's products will get more expensive, rest of society pays. I think it would be cleaner to just have society pay directly, which might enable economic pressure against the inefficiency, too (if society pays, the problem is open and can be tackled). Worst case is the whole company goes out of business because it cannot compete anymore.

A safe work environment should be guaranteed by legislation. Beyond that, if you don't like your job, you should find a new one. Democratic practices are completely unrelated to a work environment. No one is ruling over you. You're free to go.

Granted, switching jobs isn't a simple thing to do, mainly because our labor market is so inefficient. There are other things attached to having a job, like healthcare, that complicate things. If only we separated healthcare from employment somehow...

Out of curiosity, what gains did you get from forming a union?

"A safe work environment should be guaranteed by legislation."

You're confusing actions and goals. If we pass legislation banning unsafe environments, all we're saying is "Dangerous work should only be done by criminals." If you think coal mines and slaughterhouses are bad now, just imagine how much worse they'd be if they were run by the mob.[1]

They might even be as dangerous as mines in the kind of country that does try to guarantee workers' safety and happiness through legislation ( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/13/content_391242.htm )

[1] We've passed laws that say "Nobody should smoke pot," but the effect of those laws is, essentially, "People should only buy their pot from someone who has little to lose from committing additional crimes, such as someone already involved in illicit traffic and already able to extralegally enforce illegal agreements.

I didn't say that dangerous work should be banned. When a job has risks, the necessary precautions should be taken to minimize that risk. That's what a union would be asking for in negotiations, right? They shouldn't have to.

At what point is a union or a legislature necessary, here? If I want to do something dangerous to myself, should I leave it up to Washington's Finest to assess the risks for me? Why on earth would I do that? They have every incentive to be cautious (they'll get blamed if they okay risks and I still get hurt) and no reason not to be (if my work is approved and I'm unhurt, I get the benefits; if it isn't approved, we'll never know if they were wrong).

Regulators have less information than entrepreneurs. Regulators have a bias towards caution; entrepreneurs would suffer for it. So you're advocating a system in which uninformed people with a vested interest in my failure are responsible for choosing whether or not I have a chance to succeed. I'm afraid you need more of a defense for that than a smug smattering of "should"s.

Without regulation, the cost of someone dying on the job is the same as someone quitting: you just have to train a new person to do the job. That's not the type of society I'd like to live in. Regulation isn't perfect, but it's far better than no regulation.

You keep on talking about regulators making a certain line of work illegal, but that's not what I'm suggesting. All work should be made as safe as possible.

Presumably the person taking on the job would ask for an appropriate compensation for the risk.

That doesn't mean that the risk shouldn't be minimized.

Yes it does. The compensation to the worker for the risk may cost more than reducing the risk. Therefore the risk will be minimized if possible to save cash.

That argument would make sense, if you were refering to say someone like evil-knivel, who may be compensated heavily for making extremely dangerous stunts.

But in reality I imagine your talking about coal miners, who are not in the coal mining for the thrill of the mine, or the thrill of fame and money. But are in it to make ends meat.

That argument would make sense, if you were refering to say someone like evil-knivel, who may be compensated heavily for making extremely dangerous stunts.

But in reality I imagine your talking about coal miners, who are not in the coal mining for the thrill of the mine, or the thrill of fame and money. But are in it to make ends meat.

And why on earth would you want to restrict the economic freedom of someone desperate enough to do that kind of work? If the money isn't worth the risk, they know it better than you do -- and if you disagree with them, it's probably because you're applying your assumptions to their situation, not that you know more about mining safety than they do.

I love the intellectual lengths people will goto to justify their own greed.

This is a classic argument you are making. It makes me richer to exploit workers. But if i don't exploit my workers than I will be denying my workers their economic right to be exploited.

So you see I am only exploiting my workers to help my workers, because my workers want to have the freedom to be exploited, really they want to be exploited, it makes them feel more free.

Wow I am such a nice guy. I am spreading freedom.

How is employing people exploiting them? (In the bad sense of the word "exploit") The employees freely agreed to come and work for you in exchange for a certain amount of money, and they are free to leave at any time.

If they were worth any more money than they were getting paid then they would change to a higher paying job.

Well this goes into the whole philosophical question of the word "freedom" and "free will"...

It all depends what you mean by the word "freely". But unless you are actually rich, you don't really have the freedom to not get a job. So I would not describe this as purely a contractual agreement entered into by parties freely.

But you could say also that the employer needs a worker, and also isn't really freely entering into the contract. Utter nonsense! Both parties freely enter into the agreement. You might not have the freedom not to have a job, but you do have the freedom to choose which job to take. That freedom means that nobody can pay you less then you are worth, else you'll leave. Therefore nobody employer can exploit you. (That is pay you less then you're worth.)

Since you define what someone is worth as what they are getting paid..you essentially stating a tautology.

However, I would also note that since what people get paid depends on the existance of Unions, and is also effected by the law and certain legal regulations. Then the value someone is worth changes depending on what the laws currently are.

So in any case I am in favor of trying to increase the worth of people.

(Not that this is really relevant, but most people who lead companies actually do not need their workers, they often can afford for the company to fail, and still live a comfortable life...)

"Since you define what someone is worth as what they are getting paid..you essentially stating a tautology."

I'm defining what someone's labour is worth as what employers are willing to pay them. (That may differ from what they are getting paid right now, but they can always change jobs.)

It might help for you to understand that "worth" is defined as what people will pay for something. It's subjective. There's no absolute value that someone should be paid in exchange for labour. It depends on what employers think they are worth,

"However, I would also note that since what people get paid depends on the existance of Unions"

False. Most people aren't in Unions, and the average wage has risen faster than the wage demands from unions. People get paid based on their worth to employers. (Productivity etc)

"So in any case I am in favor of trying to increase the worth of people."

The only way to increase the worth of people is to make them more productive. (Skills, investing in machinery etc.) If you force employers to pay them more you will just cause anyone not worth that amount to become unemployed.

"Not that this is really relevant, but most people who lead companies actually do not need their workers"

So why do these money grabbing capitalists employ them then? Wouldn't they make even more money by getting rid of them?

And you still haven't shown me how employing someone exploits them.

Wow, you did not comprehend a single word I wrote. Therefore this conversation is over.

"Democratic practices are completely unrelated to a work environment."

Maybe to YOUR work environment, but not all.

What gains did we get? Well, for one, a voice so that we could communicate with management in an orgainzed way, just as management generally do with the labourforce. Before, each person who had a problem was isolated and dealing with it alone.

Then add in the free legal representation, negotiation advice, free training etc etc

"Then add in the free legal representation, negotiation advice, free training etc etc"

Wow. Free? Really? Where do you think the money comes from? The union has operative expenses that it pays for with the dues you pay. You PAY for those things and the overhead it takes to support them. Your employer probably pays a bit for them too, and as a result probably increases prices or decreases employee benefits to compensate.

Try owning and running a business sometime and tell me how much you think it would benefit you (and your business) to be "democratized".

In a democracy, people run things. In a corporation, the owners run things. I'm not saying that they should run things without thinking about what their employees want, I'm just saying that by definition, a corporation isn't a democracy.

What kind of issues were there that the union dealt with?

And "free"? Aren't there union dues?