Originally Posted by spence
Apple is an odd example to cite. The lack of labor representation has led to hazardous working conditions and dramatic suicide rates among Apple's contractors.
The contractors you speak of are in China and are under the Chinese Communist Party's model of manufacturing, not under the control of Apple. When Apple said it was going to invetigate the conditions, the workers were miraculously given a pay raise by Foxconn, the contractor. The conditions are horrible compared to American standards (of both American union and non-union manufacterers), but among the best in China. Also, Foxconn produces products for several other companies, not just Apple. The suicide rate at Foxconn, by the way is lower than for the Chinese national average, and lower than that in all 50 U.S. states. A Forbes article points out that what is happening at Foxconn is indicative of what is happening in China because of its rise as a manufactoring magnet, as well as its Communist party's control. The Assumption that the suicide rate at Foxconn is because of non-unionization does not correlate to reality. To begin with, the Foxconn workers have the government puppet union (the only one allowed in China) to represent them, which, of course, is a farce. But, are we to assume that union labor in the U.S. does not participate in our higher suicide rate than Foxconn's? A unionized French factory had 60 suicide attempts of which half resulted in deaths over the last three years.
A telling sentence in the Forbes article: "Today, we see the social detachment, alienation and despair that are the result of an efficient--but ultimately unsustainable--system." Beware America.
The innovators at Apple are white collar and historically speaking wouldn't have been unionized anyway given the nature of their skill set.
Many white collar jobs, especially in the public sector, are unionized.
Within manufacturing unions can have a positive impact. A stable workforce retains the trade skills necessary to produce a quality product.
Certainly unions have had a negative impact at times, but I think it's important to assess the issue as it is today rather than as it has been. In the auto industry for instance the unions have already made some big concessions as part of restructuring during the recession.
The positive impact needs to be weighed against the negative. The big concessions had to be made because of previous negative union influence. In large manufacturing situations most of the jobs are routine rather than skilled trades. How this all would have come about if unions did not exist is debatable. Unions have historically had an affect on working conditions and pay, but, historically, it was unions in large corporations, such as the auto industry which was already paying far more for its labor before the unions entered. Rather than unions being the catalyst for success, they were beneficiaries of success.
Is the answer to weaken the unions or to restructure them along with campaign finance reform to limit their political influence?
Don't know--that assumes that they must still exist.
I've also yet to see any evidence that right to work laws have any measurable benefit to states. Most likely they'll result in lower paying jobs, perhaps more jobs granted, but not the kind that will accumulate wealth for the workers.
You may not see the evidence, others do. More jobs is a key. If the pay is somewhat lower, which is debatable that it would be, the spending power may be comparable if not better. Most right to work states have lower living costs. Lower wages, in a market system, lead to lower prices.
It will help the investors though, so many of whom are foreign entities.
-spence
|