helpful to ask: what is a business? a business used to be an enterprise characterized by consolidations: the consolidation of workers within a finite work space or factory, and the consolidation of ownership --by an individual, family or cartel.
To this consolidation unions responded with "solidarity".
Today, businesses have moved away from consolidation: workers for a single corporation are dispersed, not limited to one factory, town, country, or employer. Ownership is dispersed, not limited to the tycoon or cartel. The ownership and productive capacities of a modern corporation are "diversified", a swarm of investors, or a web of workers...
another edit:
perhaps the problem of dues is best solved by analyzing how stock options have ameliorated the problem of wages... via deferral. AKA: pay for performance.
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: retailworker ]
edit (three months later) Rather than deferral being the significant factor in the stock option analogy, it's a question of ownership, which references UFCW 789's rhetoric about members owning the union.
The point is: employee stock options (as opposed to executive stock options) are a scam - basically deferred wages that may never be collected. So, when a union talks about "ownership" does it mean now, or sometime in the indefintie future: is it a promise or an action?
A union is like a business. True or false?
A union is like a business?
This question has come up a couple of times in other threads and I thought it might be worth exploring on its own. It's something that we hear a lot of biz-unionists saying whenever their decisions are challenged, especially those that involve putting financial interests ahead of members' interests.
Is a union like a business? Let's discuss this.
My own view is that a union is nothing like a business. It should be the furthest thing from a business. As soon as you start to think that it is - you've sold out the members. Businesses exploit workers. That's a fact. That's one key way in which they maximize profit. So it would seem to follow that once you conceive of a union as a "business", the same is going to happen. Members will be exploited in the name of maximizing dues revenue. How can something that exploits workers also work in their best interests?
I don't think you're going to get much of a response! 
There's nothing to dispute. 
I know a union that's like THIS BUSINESS!
I've been getting along with you guys way too much, so lets throw a little gasoline on the fire It's easy to say business unionism and elicit all kinds of lockjaw on both sides. I think it's critical to run the union(financials) with good business practices. The first thing i did as president was a thorough evaluation of where we were financially. Investments, loans, equipment and other things were carefully weighed. We paid off the building(at 10.5% interest), bought a new phone system with exceptional capacity for rep. and member access, updated our computer system and paid cash rather than financing it. We've tried to buy machines that were priced right , and would save on labor costs. We rewrote our entire dues software system to be more user friendly for members and employers alike, and for our support staff. We continually improve our union newspaper. Recently we went to 12 pages of full color,and reduced our unit costs to about 50 cents. That's down 15 cents, because it goes to the printer on disk. Every one of these decisions has given us the ability to do things we could'nt have afforded to do otherwise.
There's other things too. We try to be judicious on arbitrations. That does'nt mean we don't go, but we will not take flat out losers, just so a member feels good about his/her day in court. I lost an arbitration once that we would'nt have lost if i had used our attorney. I vowed after that, i'd never shortchange a member again by trying to save a buck by not using one. Besides, we usually are able to get employers to take care of members with the threat of arbitration.
These are all business decisions that are made, that frankly make our union stronger and more effective. The thing you can't do is let how you represent workers be dictated by people, places or things outside your own union.
quote:
I think it's critical to run the union(financials) with good business practices.
IMHO There's a huge difference between running a union like a business and running a union with good business practises, isn't there? People use good business sense to run households, does not make them businesses.
quote:
The thing you can't do is let how you represent workers be dictated by people, places or things outside your own union.
What'ya mean? Like what?
A union is a tool. 
And it depends on who uses that tool and for what purpose. 
A UNION IS THE "ANTITHESIS" OF A BUSINESS ARAISING FROM THE EXPOITATION OF THE WORKERS BY THE SYSTEM THAT PROPAGATES ITS EXISTENCE, PERIOD. CASE CLOSED!
EXCEPT,OF COURSE,UFCW WHERE A UNION COMES "EQUIPPED" WITH A "CEO". 
I completely agree with you Johnny Roberts. A union ought to be the complete antithesis of a business. That's how I define a union. I think this is the cause of the confusion: the way we define things. Our biz-u pals define a union much differently. It's like "a business where we idiots can all be CEO's". Time to start defining things our way.
How are things going at 1977 by the way? Did Brian feel honoured being inducted into the trough? What is getting in the way of revolution? (Nothing that can't be overcome I'm sure.) 
quote:
The thing you can't do is let how you represent workers be dictated by people, places or things outside your own union.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What'ya mean? Like what?
==================================================
This gets back to that big picture discussion. There is no question that things influence decisions we make. The trick is to insure the membership understands whats going on and can make those choices knowing the facts and the ramifications. Unfortunately, we are in times where the negative actions of one union can impact locals all around them. The good old days, when solid pattern bargaining increased wages for all workers just ain't happening. I want members to know whats going on elsewhere, but it may not be in their best interest to use that as a criteria for their decisions.
The problem i have with this thread is you all get to just say biz-union, and that somehow castigates the entire labor movement. I can tick off any number of things that are bad about business unionism, but i go back far enough when things were'nt like they are today. and there were all kinds of problems. Organizational stucture by its very nature creates outcomes that most of us dislike. I've yet to see anything proposed that improves on the concept other than membership ownership and participation. When that happens, its about as pure as you are going to get.
so how does a bizness, talking about employee ownership (via 401k's, ESOPS - the market version of democracy), differ from a biz-union talking about member ownership?
I don't think "ownership" is the appropriate term to define the members' relationship with the union. In my view, workers don't own the union in the same way as shareholders own a business or a person owns a piece of property. Workers are the union. There's a big difference.
quote:
I want members to know whats going on elsewhere, but it may not be in their best interest to use that as a criteria for their decisions
I think members know that, but every time something is negotiated the rest of the world and all the reasons why what we need can't be accomplished is clearly painted by leadership.
What is wrong with the concept of cleaning our own back yard, resisting the bargaining trend, asking and holding for more than the expected norm for the industry? If each small local/pocket were acting this out I believe it would look ominous to any employer. Scale it down instead of up. 
Interesting thread. It goes without saying in order to funtion effectively those entrusted to caretake the leadership of the union through a fair and democratic electoral process have to have a solid foundation in good business practices. Fiscal responcibility is a neccessary component in determining who leads our Country but that in and of itself doesn't qualify the country as a business enterprise.
However, even if you insist on thinking of a union as a business it's important to recognise that every business or corporation has a mandate or mission statement as it compass for pushing forward. What that sence of direction say's should [assuming you stay the course] determine both your direction, appeal and ultimately your success.
So lets say for the sake of argument we do consider a union to be a business, what's that union's official mandate or mission statement? What's it's primary goal and do the actions of that unions leadership reflect that goal? Who determined what that goal should be? If again for the sake of argument the members did determin that their unions leadership should focus on wage increase's and job security for existing members than it really shouldn't matter what label we put on the union's identity so long as the unions leadership and energy is focussed to that end.
I'd hate to see any of us get too wrapped up on society's labels and imagry and loose sight of what's more important. For me that's the interests of the members both today and tommorrow. If todays unionists insist on labeling unions as business's then fine, but what's the primary purpose and goals of that union and do the members fully understand and support them? If not, do they have at their disposal an effective and legitimate opportunity to change it and hold the leadership accountable? For me those questions are far more important to answer.
Scotty, i could'nt have said it better. It's way too easy to get caught up in the semantics, and lose sight of the point. That was my original premise. Does it matter if we are called biz-unions, if we simply use business skills to run the union or if we are throwbacks to the good old days, whatever and whenever those were. It really is about what we do, not what we are labeled.
As far as the question of ownership vs the member being the union, it's the same dilemna. I've heard it a thousand times, you are the union. So what. If they are the union and they do nothing, then that's what the union becomes; nothing. It is essential for workers to take ownership. It is essential for leadership to give ownership. When members make the union the elected officers and hired staff the union, we get the business union mentality. Too often, we've embraced the idea that the union is just an insurance policy to cash in in case we need them.That's the kind of thinking we've got to get away from.
quote:
It really is about what we do, not what we are labeled.
From the top down, I agree, labels don't matter. From the bottom up it's all about labels and can make or break member participation.
quote:
From the top down, I agree, labels don't matter. From the bottom up it's all about labels and can make or break member participation.
-------------------------------------------------
Explain please. Thank you.
Unions are or should be organic. Businesses are based on this ever growing consumptive organism that must consume more in order to survive (capitalism)and this consumptive organism is always searching for more to eat.
Unions should be about collectives. Self substaining and not profit generating. We have lost sight of this and it frightens me of what we are leaving our children.
I know I'm drifting, but Pearson had me working late, so let me leave with this; Maker of Deals
Abusiness man is a maker of deals. He wants to close a profitable deal in the shortest possible time he tells you what a good bargain you are getting he is always thinking what a good bargain he is getting. He appeals to the selfishness in you to satisfy the selfishness in you to satisfy the selfishness in him.
Business Is Selfishness
Because everybody is naturally selfish businessman say that business must be based on selfishness. But when business is based on selfishness everybody is busy becoming more selfish we have classes and clashes. Peter Maurin
I'm tired,
St. Paul Trotsky
Hey Paul, just how late were you working?
Explain? I'll try.
Top down devise labels (A descriptive term; an epithet) as a tool to profit control whatever. They exercise the power of a label.
Bottom up, our life is guided by labels, sometimes making life choices based solely on labels (trust or distrust).
quote:
From the top down, I agree, labels don't matter. From the bottom up it's all about labels and can make or break member participation
Member participation is where change is initiated. Without a strong foundation, built through member participation, labor cannot build a structure which will withstand the future. Labeling, which is brought about through distrust, can be the mortar which binds the membership together towards a common goal.
quote:
Bottom up, our life is guided by labels, sometimes making life choices based solely on labels (trust or distrust).
--------------------------------------------------
Would'nt it be better to make decisions based on something other than labels?
==================================================
[QUOTE]
Member participation is where change is initiated. Without a strong foundation, built through member participation, labor cannot build a structure which will withstand the future. Labeling, which is brought about through distrust, can be the mortar which binds the membership together towards a common goal.
--------------------------------------------------
I absolutely agree with your first two sentences, but it would seem to me using the mortar of distrust to solidify anything only dooms us to failure. When we label, top down or bottom up, we tend to cast people, places or things in a negative light.I would think it makes more sense to identify shortcomings and work together to change them.
quote:
Would'nt it be better to make decisions based on something other than labels?
Without a doubt, but before people can hear they should be within hearing distance.
You gals are the ones who said labels shouldn't matter. IMHO nothing can change until the negatives ones are dismantled and in that way labels do matter?
quote:
I absolutely agree with your first two sentences, but it would seem to me using the mortar of distrust to solidify anything only dooms us to failure. When we label, top down or bottom up, we tend to cast people, places or things in a negative light.I would think it makes more sense to identify shortcomings and work together to change them.
Unless I'm wrong, mistrust and mistreatment were two major components which labor used to bring about solidarity when labor unions were only a dream of the working class. Working "together" to change shortcomings is great, but it takes two to tango!
quote:
"but it takes two to tango"
My being here ain't a fox trot.
It's probably a useful tactic to talk about ownership, since the business concept of employee ownership has been beaten into our heads the last ten years or so. But isn't that a reactive strategy and does it really mean anything?
Personally, I don't want to own the union, I want to be a foot-soldier (or file clerk) in the war against the greedheads.
quote:
I don't want to own the union, I want to be a foot-soldier (or file clerk) in the war against the greedheads.
Union is an action not an entity.
Jd, thats the beauty and simplicity of the labor movement. With all kinds of workers participating , there is room for them to be active at whatever level they want. If you want to be a foot soldier, jump on board, we need a thousand of them. If you want to be an architect, lots of room. Make a few phone calls, you bet. The needs are endless. The problem comes when members won't play or when leaders won't let them. One of the primary problems with the business model has been that mentality that the "union" can take care of it. The fact is without the membership, we can't. It gets worse though. With the passage of time, it got easy for each side to blame the other. We were able to do as we pleased and the members often felt like we were'nt doing enough. Everyone was right, but so what?
We adopted the phrase, membership is about ownership, just so workers understood we were desperate for them to participate. Beyond the slogan, what has been most effective has been to ask them. No-one has been expected to be something they couldn't be or do something they wouldn't do. All that really matters is they are willing to do something.
quote:
My being here ain't a fox trot.
Easy Bill, I'm not labeling you! I can appreciate the fact you are willing to discuss issues in an open format. The fact is, the majority of the member's national and district officers, at least in my sector of labor, are instructed to refrain from any public form of debate or discussion. They believe rebels create problems within the unions. I on the other hand, believe problems within the unions are what create the rebels!
Have you had to answer to anyone concerning your participation on this forum? The national officers in my organization answer to a higher association which demands strict adherence to their protocol. Any local union which deviates from the norm runs the risk of retaliation with harsh sanctions, mergers, etc., or at least a threat of same. The officers within this association see the internet as a wrecking tool which will crumble the very foundation of the "house of labor". Change is frightening for some, but it is inevitable! It's up to us to make sure the change benefits the members. Labor has been taking a beating and the business approach to unionism seems not to be working. Ground-up is the only way I can see a beneficial change but nothing says it wouldn't make the task easier with officers at the top who are supportive of a grass roots approach to unionism. Tango, fox trot, waltz, or the cotton-eyed-joe; it really doesn't matter as long as we can dance!
[QUOTE] Tango, fox trot, waltz, or the cotton-eyed-joe; it really doesn't matter as long as we can dance!
------------------------------------------------ It's a good thing this is on the net and not live, it wouldn't be a pretty picture. No-one has said stay off mfd. I'm fairly certain i'm not securing my future as an international vp, but that was never my goal when i came to the labor movement. I am convinced we need to rebuild this movement from the ground up. I don't want to see the misery of having to do it from a total state of collapse. Our history is filled with periods of apparent demise, only to rise up from the ashes of the old(sounds like the makings of a song). It's just a matter of how badly it burns before we do it.
I believe the internet is an incredible tool to use in this rebuilding process. I wish there was more internal, external and open debate about what we need. It would only make us stronger. Unfortunately there's this ego thing and this protectionism of the job thing that makes it troubling to some. If we're called rebels because we want to see the labor movement survive and grow, so be it..........after all, it's just another label.
I totally disagree with taking *labels* out of the equation for change. Could be you've never been stuck behind one but there are many many who are, many who don't move forward 'cause of labels.
Dispelling the myths and *turning the labels* could go a long way to empowering workers. If workers aren't empowered then aren't they just following another *leader*? IMHO
quote:
cotton-eyed-joe
Now we're talkin'
The front page article about the B.C. ministry of labour guy who resigned is scarry. It goes to show what a few hundred K into a politicians pocket can buy you. The only answer for people like Gordon Campbell is an electorate the unions can influence to vote them out of office. Unions in B.C. hold the balance of power at the ballot box if they had the credability to swing the members vote a certain way. The thing is they don't.
Now you can call me what ever you please but the fact union leaders can't get their members to vote against a government like the B.C. Liberals should tell you everything you need to know about the health and welfair of the this provinces labour movement. This isn't a government that sqeeked out a victory, they very nearly sweept the house.
It won't get better it'll get worse and workers need strong effective union leadership that focus's on the members and not on the unions bottom line. On the flip side of that strong effective union leaders need dedicated and mobalized workers to push for social change and get involved in their union and the communities around them. Otherwise we're all in for a rough ride.
But none of this can happen unless we all seek out and destroy any and all corruption that exists in the house of labour. Trust and commitment begins with the dismissal of the last despotic union leaders. For me, there can be no other way.
quote:
Dispelling the myths and *turning the labels* could go a long way to empowering workers. If workers aren't empowered then aren't they just following another *leader*? IMHO
I hate to sound stupid, but how does calling me a machine head empower workers? It would seem that open, honest discussion and debate would do more to change the movement than insulting someone.
I don't want to read anything into your post that wasn't intended, so please clarify your last sentence. Better yet , let me ask the question.
You don't see leadership as a bad thing do you? I don't see a time where there won't be leadership. I've never been a big fan of leadership by committee. There was a time i worked closely with a group of socialists. They were as dedicated and committed as anyone i've ever worked with, but it was painful just trying to get out a newspaper. We had to debate every word we used. Little things took enormous amouts of time, and the results weren't all that far removed from where we would have been if i had just done it and they edited it.
I get the impression sometimes the posters on this site see leadership in general as a bad thing.
quote:
I hate to sound stupid, but how does calling me a machine head empower workers?
Who called you a machinehead (one word)? I'll have their hide.
quote:
It would seem that open, honest discussion and debate would do more to change the movement than insulting someone.
Then why do ya'all call me the rank and file?
quote:
I don't want to read anything into your post that wasn't intended, so please clarify your last sentence. Better yet , let me ask the question.
You don't see leadership as a bad thing do you?
I'm waivering. So far union leadership has done nothing to impress me, so if we're talking union then yes.
quote:
I don't see a time where there won't be leadership.
I do.
quote:
I've never been a big fan of leadership by committee. There was a time i worked closely with a group of socialists. They were as dedicated and committed as anyone i've ever worked with, but it was painful just trying to get out a newspaper. We had to debate every word we used. Little things took enormous amouts of time, and the results weren't all that far removed from where we would have been if i had just done it and they edited it.
I,ve seen good results with committees and bad results, so not sure that's the answer.
quote:
I get the impression sometimes the posters on this site see leadership in general as a bad thing.
Can't speak for everyone but if we're talking union and politics see above. I've had enough, I wouldn't recommend/trust/walk across the street to meet/ any of 'em.
quote:
I hate to sound stupid, but how does calling me a machine head empower workers?
Actually Bill I think you've been promoted to mechanic ; 'a worker skilled in using tools or in making, operating, and repairing machines.'
Heavy Duty Mechanic is reserved for people like HJF who not only have the skills and commitment to effect positive change within the union but also posess the internal insight and understanding of the organization and culture to do so. You'll get that promotion on the day you run against Dority.
[I just made that up but given I didn't come up with power source I figure I'm due ]
All kidding aside Bill what would you have us call UFCW staffers and officers who didn't earn their position in a fair election? and won't give it up in a fair election either? Leadership is an essential ingredient so long as the power source has the ability to remove leaders who aren't meeting their needs. The UFCW electoral proceedures are a joke! They're so called appeals process is a shame. How then is the power source supposed to get rid of a hated President?
It may very well be a form of name calling but think about the potential law suits that would come from calling them liers, cheats, backstabbers, crooks, scum, etc etc etc etc etc.
If your not apart of the solution your part of the problem so in this case if your not a mechanic, your a machinehead. Which is just more labels I guess.
Scotty, i haven't made my campaign public yet, so don't be announcing it on a place i know they'll see it. We should talk about you becoming my campaign director, although your win ratio isn't very impressive.
Seriously, the problem with labels is that they become one size fits all. You are either this or that, and there's very little in life that is that simple. Too often we rely on second or third hand information to make our decisions. If i am going to sit in judgement or critisize someone, i do want to know the facts. After conducting hundreds of investigations over the years, the one thing that is almost an absolute is there are two sides to every story. Most often the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two versions.
I do like to believe i am part of the solution, but then it depends on who is determining what the the problem is, or what the solution is. IE: If you are the international, do you see mfd as part of the solution or part of the problem. Perhaps thats what makes me a little unique. I see both entities as part of the solution, and part of the problem.
quote:
We should talk about you becoming my campaign director, although your win ratio isn't very impressive.
that cut me deep Bill,
Hey I've been watching the West Wing and I think I'm learning a thing or two. 
Your points are taken but nonetheless I think union heads who earn the right should be identified as machineheads. Just as those who prove they don't should not. Nobody should expect perfection from anyone, we are after all human. However, we all know the difference between a union President who thinks of themselves as the "CEO" and one's who think of themselves as that of a servant. In the end, isn't that the test?
Scotty: You know i was just pulling your leg on the win ratio. I wasn't on judging people though. I know Bernie Cristophe personally and he never came across as a ceo. In fact, when we were working on stuff, he struck me as a dedicated trade unionist who spent his life committed to the membership. I've tried to stay away from the personal stuff, but it's really critical to know if what you are saying about people is true. When i hear the phrase 'sources', i get very nervous, and very suspicious. In the end, after 25 years, i can tell you i have members who think i'm a son of a bitch. That goes with the territory. I just think its counter productive to lump all leaders or all members into a label(point taken siggy on rank and file), especially if the outcome is that person or group of people feels its demeaning.
Scotty, if i do decide to run in july next year, i might have to call you. It's a cinch i won't have many friends left, after all the time i spend on this darn site. Hey, do you guys know of 15 locals i can get to endorse me?
It's useless to complain about labels. They're a fact of politics. Like the truism of American politics "define your opponent before he defines you." This is as old as Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" which advises that you must "shape" your enemy.
When you're saying let's dispense with labels, what you really mean is we're on the same side, wearing the same label. So rather than talking about labels, let's convince each other that we're on the same side.
And keep the label-maker locked and loaded in case we aren't.
Damn jd, with wisdom like that i may have to find a place in my cabinet for you . Actually, that was my point back several posts. When we belittle or just beat the hell(or sue) one another we are a part of the problem, rather than the solution. When the constructive side of mfd comes out, i see how it can be part of the solution. That's not to say there can't be some serious headbanging. The value of critical analysis and honest debate is essential. I'm not sure we get there when we insult one another. And i mean that going both ways.
After consideration I've decided I shouldn't have made the comment about Bernie, it was out of line and unnessessary to my point. Therefore I've taken it out. Attack the problem not the person right?
Now Bill I don't want to make too big a deal about this cause I'm not that put off by it at this point, but I should point out to you...besides my Dad... I let very few people call me Scotty in public and even then, I don't really like being called that. I would prefer you call me Scott. I'm sure that sounds rediculous to anyone reading this post but it would take a couch and a very expensive therapist to explain to you why. I'm very open to what you have to say but the truth is my brain shuts off for the first few words after I see that name and I often miss the point. I think you want to be heared so I'd simply suggest in order to better facilitate that you not add the 'y' after my name. OK?
[I hope this doesn't hurt my chances at being your campaign manager ]
Scott; I try and learn from everything i do, and this is such a teachable moment. We go through life looking for apparent slights and insults. When we find them, we allow it to drive a wedge between us that insures we are angry and often carry it with us forever. What you did is the right way to deal with something that makes us frustrated or pisssed. Open, honest communication solves about 95% of the problems we have. I know this is an over simplification, but it is sooooo easy its often overlooked. For the sceptics, Scott and i didn't set this up.
By the way, it would be a priviledge to have you on my team, anytime.
Correct me if I'm wrong but how did we get from *A Union is like a Business. True or false?* to Scotts' application for ufcw organizer being accepted?
siggy it's not fair you get to use all those smile guys and we don't That off topic guy cracks me up.
What about the pension investments? I think for unions there should be more to it than just what's the most profitable. For instance investing in highly unethical company stocks that exploit labour or something. A business wouldn't care as long as the stocks made money but I think union investors should. I'm just not sure to what extent and how we'd go about setting the investment guildlines. What does everyone else think?
quote:
Yeah well Bill's comment about you being his campaign manager cracked me up.
K .. I am really naive here so bear with me 'cause I don't get why unions have to own properties other than facilities for union function. Understandably investment has $$ return, but the flip side to that is investment loss and the obvious corruption which, when evaluated, the result may look much like the bank account pre investment. Shouldn't union funds be somewhat liquid, with investment in member education priority.
The pursuit of profit should not be an objective for any union under any circumstances. The profit motive is evil (because it relies on the exploitation of workers) and using profit for any reason is, at best, an attempt to use managed evil as a means to an objective that is supposed to help exploited workers. It's self defeating.
Education, representation, evolution, revolution should be the objectives of a union. The pursuit of profit is completely incompatible with the goals of any organization that purports to represent the interests of workers.
These last couple of posts sounds like a new thread, but that may just be the control thing in me. I thought my comment to Scott on a teachable moment was what a bi-union would do.... or was it what a workers union would do? Or is it there really is some crossover and its up to us to figure it out. Hell, maybe this was the right thread.
To RV's point on profts, i think there are definable differences in investment purposes. With union treasuries, i find myself believing in the theory that if you've got money in the bank, you should be using it to grow the union or improve the members well being. On the other hand, members pension plans have accumulated enormous amounts of money. It is imperative those monies are invested wisely and well. With most plans being mature, the benefits paid out often exceed the level of contributions coming in. That means it is necessary for the investments to subsidize the plans. They will frequently use an assumption rate of 7% to 8% a year earnings, so it is critical to maintain sound investment strategies.
There has been a debate raging for years over investments. Several union leaders have been arguing for socially responsible investments. In fact the AFL-CIO has put together an ongoing committee to try and leverage investments into a solid club to use against non-union employers. That does pose a problem, because there is an arguement to be made about the fiduciary responsibilities of trustees to secure sound returns on investments. It is the classic arguement about the difference between unions and business.
The question of a union being like a business or not is definately a tough one to anwer with a simple true or false. Like siggy, I also believe Union is an action not an entity, but others argue that it is Brotherhood which is an action and Union which is an entity.
I agree that profit shouldn't be the main objective for a union, but the fact is, unions are in a constant battle within a capitalistic realm. Investments made by unions should be done with the objective of support for all of labor. Financial growth shouldn't come at a cost to workers. Investments should be undertaken which will bolster labor in it's efforts to help all of the working class. If a union's assets are invested and maintained in a business manner, this business' objective should be the promotion of the labor movement while benefiting the members. Member's retirement investments have to be carefully watched by the members themselves in order to keep corruption from entering the equation but victories within the labor movement should be the largest profit the union aquires.
quote:
I agree that profit shouldn't be the main objective for a union, but the fact is, unions are in a constant battle within a capitalistic realm. Investments made by unions should be done with the objective of support for all of labor. Financial growth shouldn't come at a cost to workers. Investments should be undertaken which will bolster labor in it's efforts to help all of the working class. If a union's assets are invested and maintained in a business manner, this business' objective should be the promotion of the labor movement while benefiting the members. [/QB]
The labor movement has an extraordinary amount of monies in pension plans. I have the info at work, but i thought it was like 300 billion dollars. I think we are like the third largest source of capital in the US for investment purposes. Rich Trumka is the lead person on the strategy to leverage those dollars into union friendly investments. Unfortunately, we still have too many trustees who fail to understand there are a lot of employers who want to see the labor movement gone. While they may provide better returns in the short run, over the long haul, their success will insure we are a thing of the past.
quote:
The labor movement has an extraordinary amount of monies in pension plans
Just experienced a pension seminar. Got the low down on the (my) ufcw pension which came about with the '97 1518 agreement. (we were switched from a completely company funded pension to what amounts to a 50/50 funded union pension) I can tell you that there is nothing, I mean nothing extraordinary 'bout it. What exactly does "extraordinary amount of monies in pension plans" mean to the Power Source?
quote:
What exactly does "extraordinary amount of monies in pension plans" mean to the Power Source?
Retirement: getting out with enough of a monthly income so you can enjoy those golden years. The work i do for the IFEBP, showed me how well a lot of union members did with their defined benefit plans. Then, there were some that didn't keep pace in the 80s and 90s. Ours was one of them. We set a goal to try and improve our pension, so members didn't have to keep working till they were 65.
In our 98 negotiations and again in 2002, we made dramatic improvements in the benefit levels. We also added a defined contribution plan that members now have over 11 million dollars in. In real terms, it means members are retiring at 62 with 90% of their income between the db and social security. Benefit packages are probably the single biggest reason workers should want to join a union. In non-union settings, many employers create half-assed packages that are a joke.
If you are not happy with your retirement plan, i'd suggest you stick your arm in the air and propose fixing it. I have this strange feeling you don't need me to tell you how or what to do Siggy. I'm pretty sure you know how to get things done in your neck of the woods.
How do I change the font so I can read ANY of this???? My magnifying glass only makes the half formed words Bigger?????????????????????????
quote:
it means members are retiring at 62 with 90%
This makes our 100% at 60 look great, but only for a second. Then you ask, 100% or 90% of what and neither look livable.
From all the accounts, the pension funds are overflowing, just not in the Power Sources cup. By the time I retire (sorry save-on/ufcw not for awhile) I fully expect to receive a pension equal or greater than my current income. The existing pension plan does not even come close. I hold the plan administrator and trustees directly responsible for sharing my plan way too many times. Is that what happens when a union acts like a business?
quote:
How do I change the font so I can read ANY of this???? My magnifying glass only makes the half formed words Bigger?????????????????????????
What browser are you using?
In IE, select the 'view' menu and change the font size (should be medium by default). If you have a wheel mouse, just hold down Ctrl and roll the wheel.
In Netscape you have to hold down the Ctrl key and push [ or ] to adjust it.
Opera is the same as IE AFAIK.
quote:
This makes our 100% at 60 look great, but only for a second. Then you ask, 100% or 90% of what and neither look livable
This is where it always is a challenge having a conversation on the net. I have no idea what 100% of your salary is at age 60. I do know most retail jobs have no defined benefit plans. If they had anything, it was a limited 401k, that most retail workers would stuggle to put any money into.
Everything in life is relative, so if you try and compare your pension to a building trades person, you will not be satisfied. If you compare it to a non-union retail worker, yours is head and shoulders better.
I guess the good news is our members are delighted with the improvements we've made.If you ask some workers, its not enough. Of course, it always comes back to the dilemna, how do balance the younger members wanting wages and the more senior, wanting benefit improvements.
quote:
I have no idea what 100% of your salary is at age 60
I misread your post. I was referring to getting full pension at age 60 as opposed to having a penalty for early retirement. But the full pension does not come remotely close to equalling what my income is.
quote:
how do balance the younger members wanting wages and the more senior, wanting benefit improvements.
Employers pay the wages and hopefully add to pensions, none of this gets in the way of improving pension return on existing funds. A little less bad investment and a lot less skimming off the top would see members pensions blossom.
quote:
It is often easier to fight for ones principles than to live up to them.
Never have I heard a statement which was so true. In regards to the investment of union funds going towards the support of labor; we as members, must also ensure the money we invest in our daily lives reaches the sectors of business which do not use the sweat and blood of their employees to turn a profit. It is everyones responsibility to eradicate the abuse of people everywhere. The decay of our principles seems to come from convenience.
I'd like to point out to everyone that pensions are useless if the members they are intended for don't last in the industry more than a couple years [months] I actually worked with a guy at Buy Low who also worked with me at Save-on and he told me his pension would be $1.65 a month at 65. That's not even worth the cost of the paper keeping him informed of that. People are much better off taking their money out of the union's pension fund and investing it themselves. That 300 Billion is only as good as the people investing it and if those same people are buying hotels and shopping malls that see themselves as board members then the money isn't worth a damn is it?
And while I agree with licatisplit about the "morality of union investment" I wouldn't jump too quickly to refering to all non union employers as exploiters of labour. Believe it or not there are good non union employers who recognise that treating your employees like valuable assets is a benefit to the business in the long run. Not every business man is an a$$hole. So wouldn't it be better to boycot proven offenders as opposed to determining who your pension advisors can invest with based on union employer status?
quote:
I'd like to point out to everyone that pensions are useless if the members they are intended for don't last in the industry more than a couple years [months] I actually worked with a guy at Buy Low who also worked with me at Save-on and he told me his pension would be $1.65 a month at 65. That's not even worth the cost of the paper keeping him informed of that. People are much better off taking their money out of the union's pension fund and investing it themselves.
Scott: I believe the pension amount you quoted is a physical impossibility. Unless funds in Canada are different, there is usually a 5 year vesting requirement. Typical vesting requires a set number of hours, which will trigger a benefit credit for that year. It could be a partial credit, but it would never be that low. At least in the U.S. under ERISA, it couldn't happen. I would also take issue whether the majority of workers could or would be able to invest better than most funds. I realise there are exceptions, but defined benefit plans for workers are excellent vehicles for workers to set up their retirement. Where your arguement has merit is whether unions will be able to keep workers in their jobs over the coming years. That will be the test.
As far as not every businessman being an asshole, there's probably a few good ones. The question ultimately becomes whats the proper distribution of what the business throws off. When he/she decides that, do the workers help determine how much and where the money goes? Usually not. At least in a Union setting, workers are active participants in that decision.
As far as your last point, it would seem to me that investment decisions should be based on a set of pre-established guidelines. The value of a given criteria is once they are established, it is much easier to adhere to them. Otherwise you run the risk of trustees making decisions based on something other than sound monetary factors.IE: whether the investment mgr is a friend or maybe they've influenced a decision with other perks.
quote:
there is usually a 5 year vesting requirement
The ufcw plan has immediate vesting. Which I take to mean 1 yr credited service (1400 hrs)
Our company (ofg) plan featured vesting after 2 yrs continuous service (1700 hrs).
quote:
The ufcw plan has immediate vesting. Which I take to mean 1 yr credited service (1400 hrs)
So does that mean you can earn a benefit credit regardless of the hours worked?
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Our company (ofg) plan featured vesting after 2 yrs continuous service (1700 hrs).
Same question; how many hours do you need to work to earn a benefit credit. Assuming thats the term you use to describe the dollar value of a pension.
--------------------------------------------------
Somewhere in the future, it may be interesting to compare Canada's labor laws, against the US's. I always operated under the assumption that yours was head and shoulders above ours, but it appears there are some better and some worse.
quote:
Same question; how many hours do you need to work to earn a benefit credit. Assuming thats the term you use to describe the dollar value of a pension
"Which I take to mean 1 yr credited service (1400 hrs)."
and:
"Our company (ofg) plan featured vesting after 2 yrs continuous service (1700 hrs)."
quote:
Somewhere in the future, it may be interesting to compare Canada's labor laws, against the US's. I always operated under the assumption that yours was head and shoulders above ours, but it appears there are some better and some worse.
That's a great idea and why wait? We'd all have to do alot of homework but that's good. Being familiar with specific labour law (and other) would be very empowering. It's your idea so you're it, where do we start?
Since the topic has been around pensions, how about some general pension definitions according to U.S. law?
A "Pension Plan" is a program of benefits that provides pensions. Under U.S. law, nearly all pension plans have several things in common.
First, the assets held by the pension plan are held in trust. This means that the money is kept separate and apart, and neither you nor your employer may use it.
Second, pension plans are "prefunded." This means that the money that you will use for your retirement is set aside during your working life. By the time you retire, the amount that is being held for you in your pension plan's trust should be enough to provide the full amount of your benefit.
Third, unless you participate in a plan maintained by a church or a governmental organization, your pension plan is governed by federal law--primarily the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") and the Internal Revenue Code.
In addition, if your union helps to run your pension plan, it is also governed by the provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA" or "Taft-Hartley Act").
Lets start with a couple of terms we use and see if they mean the same thing on either side of the border:
Vesting Service; Vesting service determines if you are eliigible for a pension benefit. You become vested when you have five years of vesting service. That became part of the federal law governing pensions no later than 1999. Up untill then plans could have 10 year vesting , which meant workers got no benefit untill they were in the plan for 10 vested years. Our grocery plan has a requirement that a participant has to have contributions made on 500 hours in a calendar year to earn a vesting credit.
Benefit Credit: Benefit credit determines the amount of your pension benefit. You earn benefit credit for work in covered employment for which contributions to the plan are required to be made. You earn one full benefit credit when you have hourly contributions made to the plan on 1800 hours or more. You can earn partial credits based on a sliding scale between 500-1800 hours in a calendar year.
Both these numbers are arbitrary at the discretion of the fund. Vesting service-500 in a calendar year and 1800 for a full benefit credit. I've seen both numbers set higher and lower. Do you have laws dictating either vesting or benefit credits?
Above, licatsplit mentioned ERISA. It is: Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This law requires that persons engaged in the administration, supervision and management of pension monies have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all investment-related decisions are made (1) with the care, skill, prudence and diligence...that a prudent man...familiar with such matters would use...(2) by diversifying the investments...so as to minimize risk. This wording mandates two significant changes in traditional investment practices: (1) the age-old prudent man rule has been replaced by the notion of a prudent "expert";(2) the notion of a prudent investment has been replaced by the concept of a prudent portfolio.
Obviously, ERISA becomes far more reaching than what is spelled out here. Most significantly, there is ample case law that obligates trustees to perform their duties so as to prevent them from using the trust in any way that would benefit themselves. The most common violation falls under what is called Prohibited Transactions. Those are broken down into two categories:Transactions between the plan and a party in interest and transactions between the plan and a fiduciary. There is any number of instances where trustees have been held personally liable for breaches of their fiduciary duties.
This is some very basic information, but the ability for unions and employers comes from three laws:
(1) Internal Revenue Code> It provided tax-exempt status for both health and welfare plans and pension plans.
(2) National Labor Relations Act of 1947, as amended>this allows contributions to be made from a collective bargaining agreement directly to a trust fund as long as the trust fund is jointly administered, the assets are used for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees and their dependents, the trust has to be audited annually, the contributions are made pusuant to a written agreement, the trust document has to provide a means by which a deadlock can be solved, and the benefits can be only those provided by section 302(c) (5) of the Taft-Hartley Act.
(3)ERISA>as described above.
So what or how is the authority to administrate these plans derived from and governed in Canada?
Different play book here Bill. The average Canadian standard of living is better than in the U.S. but you have some laws down there that should be adopted here in Canada but are not. I'd argue the automatic vesting out here is a smoke and mirrors side show to fool people into thinking the jobs provide them with a pension when in fact as you've seen it's hardly worth mentioning. I will say I didn't see his statement. He was supposed to bring it into work for me but he never did. I have however seen others just as pitiful so I have no reason to doubt it.
Ivan could always show up here and say something given he was the former director of benefits. He knows I wouldn't crap all over him I'd give him a fair shake [we were friends once] but as you can see he hasn't shown up. They seem to like to pretend we're not really here. [hey if it gets them through the day ]
I'm not convinced everyone is better off leaving their money in the hands of people like Clifford Evans and his AFM and Propco buddies. I think the potential for mismanagement and corruption is to great a risk and going it alone is a safer if not more lucrative long term strategy. That said I'm also not so proud I can't admit when I'm wrong either. So prove me wrong guys.
Why shouldn't I take my money out of your pension funds? Why shouldn't others follow suit?