Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (3842)	1/29/2001 4:14:48 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

Why do people unionize? Power. I don't have a problem with the workers of the world uniting- I have heard tell they have nothing to lose but their chains. Not sure that is true- since we are all chained to one thing or another- but I like to see power spread out- and unions spread power.

To: Constant Reader who wrote (3842)	1/29/2001 5:17:08 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Why are these people unionized? My understanding is that most of the growth in government unionization is at the state and local level. I'm not equipped to speak to that. As for Federal unions, they're an amazing aberration. As for your question, the Federal government could hardly not allow its workers to organize. From a political perspective, what kind of message would that send? Given that its allowed, well, nature abhors a vacuum. Since Federal unions can't bargain for wages or benefits and Federal employees can't strike, the unions find other ways to occupy themselves. I think those parts of Uncle Sam's domain that are traditionally blue collar, like ship yards, have high union membership. Agencies that contain mostly lawyers and scientists and economists have very low union membership. Like VERY low. Federal unions are required to represent all workers whether they're members or not so even those who would naturally be inclined to join tend not to because they get the same benefits for free. Union members, best I can tell, tend to be either philosophical unionists or employees who have filed a bunch of grievances. If there's a bargaining unit in place in an Agency, regardless of how few employees are actually union members (or union supporters who are to cheap to join), the union represents everyone in the bargaining unit. That means that management cannot negotiate with committees of employees who approach them with some issue or other nor can management easily go to employees to address morale problems. Neither the managers nor the employees understand this very well so lots of difficulties occur. Another bizarre aspect of Federal unions is that, since they have so few members, they can't staff a lot of joint projects that would be of benefit to employees. Still, they won't authorize anyone but a union members to represent them on these task forces so employee needs that management is willing to meet can go unmet. The Clinton Administration, reportedly in return for union acceptance of Gore's reinvention program, increased the role of unions by creating labor/management partnerships to govern employee matters. The Bush administration has already in the process of undoing that. Karen