Dean,

This guy is SCARY. And I do not care what anyone says about his intellect -- his mouth runs on wheels and his brain can't begin to keep up.

Wind him up and let him go. He's the Energizer Bunny of self-destructing pols.

Sorry! I should have directed that to Rosemary! :-}

Geez! How many times can one person flip-flop in the same interview?! Dean is more confused about this issue than John Kerry is about Iraq.

Wow... he has no idea what he is talking about...

I blame at least part of it on Chris Matthews' attack style of questioning. Make no mistake, I'm no fan of dean, but Matthews is a jerk of an interviewer.

yep, Matthews' is real good at interviewing... especially at making people look stupid BUT if you are smart enough you can still end up looking smart.
Question:
Did Bush ever go on that show?

And if Dean mumbled something about screwing 12-year-olds, I'm sure you would find some way to explain that, too...

Dean is totally wrong - nonunion workers do *NOT* have the same benefits and wages as union workers! For the "smart candidate" he is obviously completely uninformed on this one...

Wha-a?

Dean just wants to have it both ways - union support and still get elected, ya see? Unions want to force people into Unions because that way the Unions get more dough and the Union Bosses can skim off more for mob cronies and politicians on the take. This is a 1 plus 1 equals 2 thing here - now, as for Dean, he's already gotten a large number of Union endorsements and he doesn't want to screw them up...but he also knows that if the average worker, who is not unionised, got wind of Dean's willingness to force him into a Union contract, he'd probably even fail to carry D.C.; so, he ends up talking out of both sides of his mouth.

What this exchange does prove, however, is that never, ever has a Democratic Presidential candidate been asked this particular question.

I should clarify: when I talk about union vs nonunion workers, yes I mean working the same job for the same company. In jobs that have open unions (ie not all workers have to join) the union mostly negociates for its members, and hence they have higher salaries and more benefits. The downside is that they must pay dues and are expected to go along with ths union during strikes/etc. So it's a choice the workers must make on an individual basis, which is the way it should be!

My dad worked in a plant that had an open union. He actually had BETTER benefits and a slightly higher salary. One example: company pension versus union pension. The union pension was ten percent higher than the company pension my Dad chose. (My Dad was one of two workers out of hundreds that chose the company plan after reading ALL the paperwork and repeatedly refusing the union plan during the sign-up "interview") Co-workers tried to use this to "explain" to my Dad that they had the better deal. But they hadn't noticed that the REAL difference in the plan was that the union plan payments stopped with the death of the worker and the company plan continued to pay out to the worker's spouse until their death. The union plan was a win-win situation for the powers-that-be. The company saved TONS of money in shortened pensions while the union LOOKED like they had forced the company to increase the pension plan. Union recruitment was up, dues were up, kick-backs were happening. It was a good time to be a union official and a bad time to be a union worker.

I'm not knocking all unions. They played an important part in worker reforms. However, sometimes power corrupts. I believe that now unions mostly use their power in their own interests, which are often not the same as the interests of the workers.

Allison,

Actually, I dispute the concept that Unions ever provided any net benefit for anyone at any time. From day one, their primary goal has been restraint of trade in favor of keeping the Union dues members paying dues, even if most other workers suffer for it.

Worker pay and working conditions were improving steadily even before Unions became a major part of the American political/economic landscape. When you add in the rank corruption we've seen over many decades by Union after Union, what one gets is a picture of a gigantic criminal conspiracy against workers, employers and the people of the United States.

As a dues-paying union member myself -- no, really -- I see the whole issue of worker freedom in a different light.

When I was in the process of interviewing for my current employer, I was informed that the department for which I was applying was organized, and further, that it was a closed shop. If I was to take the position, I was going to have to join up with the union. If there's an issue of freedom involved, it is encapsulated in that decision of whether I was going to take the job in the first place. I knew what I was getting into when I signed up.

So I don't buy into the argument that an "open shop" is about worker freedom -- rather, I see it as an attempt to weaken the bargaining unit. And if a union and a company agree in negotiations that there will be a closed shop, why should the Government step in and interfere? To me, a closed shop actually represents a greater freedom, as it A) protects that private agreement and B) ensures that workers' rights to organize aren't choked off from the get-go.

That's not to say there aren't tradeoffs with union membership. Now that I have become a valued member of the group -- or so I like to think -- I believe that I could ask for a reasonable salary increase and get it. Instead, though, the issue of salary is pretty much bargained for me. On the other hand, I have excellent job security and an excellent health-care package, and that peace of mind may be worth more than the cash itself. But if I don't like it, I can always go work someplace else.

So I don't see why union membership is a bad thing in and of itself. I admit that the combination of a troubled firm, an inflexible union and a cut-throat marketplace leads to big trouble. But when folks work for an indirect monopoly, as I do, a union very much produces benefits for workers. We are using our shared economic power to extract a greater share of the profits from our firm -- and what's wrong with that?

Mark:

I dispute the concept that Unions ever provided any net benefit for anyone at any time.

Wow.

"And if a union and a company agree in negotiations that there will be a closed shop, why should the Government step in and interfere? "

If Dean and I agree in negotiations that you should pay a monthly retainer fee to me, wouldn't that be okay? By your argument, it would seem to be.

The problem here is what Ayn Rand (or maybe it was Milton Friedman) termed, "A and B getting together and deciding what C should do for D."

Ara,

Unions like to say that without Unions, we'd all be lower paid and working in horrible conditions...as if any Union had ever brought forth a single innovation which improved productivity, created a new product or increased profits. Only when one buys the silly, Marxist notions that the management is inherently cruel can one believe that the overwhelming benefits of improved conditions and methods would never have occured to management.

Oh, Mark, you're being disingenuous (and kicking around straw men to boot). Haven't you read any history?

Mark:

I have to disagree with you. My dad was a UAW man and back in the early days they did a lot. A lot.

Maybe they have outlived their usefulness, maybe not.

fred;

No, that's incorrect. Mr.Kepple is correct. Your analogy is completely inaccurate. A more accurate one would be "If Dean and I agree that you have to pay me $10 a month if you write for this weblog, would that be ok?". Closed shops don't "force" anyone to pay union dues, anymore than employment "forces" you to work.

If you're really a Randian, then you'd agree that the owner of the company can run it any way he wants, with any terms of employment he wants, as long as these are stated clearly upfront. If those terms include joining a union, what right do you or the government have to force a change in a freely negotiated contract?

Right to work laws are the laws where A and B (various government agencies) conspire to decide what C (the owner of the company) will do.

Ara,

My knowledge of history is encyclopedic - and I used to hold firm to the belief that the Unions played a positive role at one point; not so sure about that anymore. As Edward Crankshaw noted, speaking of the improvements in Bosnia after the Second World War, "it shouldn't have taken two World Wars just to get television to Sarajevo"; it shouldn't have taken all those murders, all that money grafted off for mob bosses, all those jobs lost due to protectionism, just to get health care and good working conditions.

Its part of the Unanswered Question; that being "was the rise of liberal democracy necessary for the forward movement of mankind? Or was the rise of liberal democracy only of use to the intelligentsia, who are only happy when they get to play at politics regardless of the consequences to common men and women?" Employee unionism was part and parcel with the upward surge of liberal democracy in the 19th century - it being viewed as the necessary counter-part for labor that the liberal intelligentsia was doing for the larger socio-political atmosphere...but who ran the Unions? How many Union bosses lived long among the workers they claimed to represent? Please explain to me the difference in lifestyle between the head of General Motors and the head of the AFL/CIO.

Its always good to keep in mind that I am a conservative - I am very difficult to convince that the radical reformer does anything of worth to anyone. A collegium of workers united for mutual assistance is, in my view, an excellent thing - a radical grouping designed to extort things out of the unwilling, however, is not a good thing and nothing good can come out of it.

Rosemary,

On the other hand, my family has never been into Unions. My Irish ancestor, an illiterate peasant, took one look at the coal mines of Pennsylvania and determined to seek his living elsewhere - he didn't need a Union to protect him; he just went and did it on his own.

The Annoying Old Guy has refuted Fred's criticism of my original post so well that I haven't any need to add to it.

As for Mr Noonan's criticism of unions: I can say that, having met several labor leaders at the local, state and national level, I'm not convinced they're getting all that fat off members' money. Nor do they forget from whence they came.

Certainly the fellows at the local and state level aren't. The folks at the national level probably do very well; but they only get there after decades of working in the labor movement, and as such deserve appropriate compensation. Given how corporate executives are compensated today, I think the unions' salary packages are likely reasonable in comparison. Plus, union chiefs haven't any stock options with which to enrich themselves and their friends (NOT that I am opposed to options. They rule. I'm just pointing out that unions don't have that carrot in the feedbag).

Certainly, an examination of labor history will show influence at some level from organized crime syndicates. However, as the federal Government has largely crushed the Mafia, this really isn't a relevant point to today's discussion. As for the rest of it, it all could have been avoided had the capitalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries been more open in sharing their profits with the people who produced them. It is nice to talk about economic theory and lassiez-faire capitalism, but that does not take away the reality that People Get Rather Upset when they are treated awfully -- not just badly, but awfully. And since a worker in 1903 had far less economic opportunities than a worker today, it's no surprise that he would take matters into his own hands rather than face a life of indentured servitude. (There was once a time when the six-day, 48-hour work week was considered disasterous to industry).

Finally, Mr Noonan writes: "A collegium of workers united for mutual assistance is, in my view, an excellent thing - a radical grouping designed to extort things out of the unwilling, however, is not a good thing and nothing good can come out of it."

This is all well and good, but the trouble with such parsing is that unions are both those things. That's why they exist. Union members certainly band together to help each other out -- but we also expect our leaders to get every damned thing they can at the bargaining table. That's because the other side, of course, has a vested interest in doing the same for themselves.

Mark:

My dad came to this country in 1965, from Poland. He spoke no English. Had no money but plenty of skill. He joined a union at a steel company. Was able to earn and save enough to bring my mom and two siblings over a year later. The union helped him get established. Three months before I was born in 1968 he joined the UAW and began working at GM. My mom almost died giving birth to my sister at 28 weeks along, in 1971 - the union made sure he kept his job. While my mother was close to death, after losing almost 4 pints of blood, the union sent members to donate blood to transfuse and help save her. Two weeks later,while that premie baby was in the hospital, my younger sister died suddenly at 13 months of age. The union raised money to help my parents bury her and made sure the rest of us kids had what we needed - food, supplies and money.

The union came through many times for my dad/us. So, even though I believe in right to work, I feel that it is my daughter duty to point out that unions can be good and they used to be.

Mark,

I think Rosemary just disproved your "unions have never done anything good" argument.

And I could add a few from my own experience with a step-father who was laid off after 16 years with a major petrochemical company, but who kept 5 kids in clothes and schooling while working through the IBEW.

Unions haven't outlived their usefulness, but like everything else they need to change with the times. Much of the things people say about unions simply are not true. Like the "fact" that they destroy the incentive for individual effort. Sure the way factory contracts are drawn up they have that effect but here is nothing that says the rank and file can’t change that. I was in a union and I started a minor revolution to convince my fellow members to vote for rules that would allow exceptional work to be rewarded at a higher rate and to get rid of the "dead wood". I convinced our "leadership" that we could get a batter contract if we brought some of these innovations to the table and it worked.

Ballplayers are all union members, much to the chagrin of fans in some cases, yet they still negotiate their own wages. Same with actors. There is no reason why the older models with which most unions are based currently need be followed unless your just arguing a straw man to destroy unions. But most of the anti union types out their now that, they just like to argue the sinister side because they don't like unions.

Oh, I quite agree, Rick. Of course, I've seen the bad side of unions. As a former NEA (National Education Association) member I have nothing good to say about those people, at all.

That said, the concept of collective bargaining does work. Or it can, anyway. Nor should there be anything wrong with it, or anything sinister about it. It depends on how they do their jobs.

I must also say that I have seen, in action, the very threat of a union cause management to back down on unreasonable working condition changes. A company I was in threw down some very tough rules that infuriated countless employees, union talk started getting serious, and POP, within a couple of weeks, things got better.

Yes they do serve a useful purpose. But I would agree that many, many unions are outdated, or are run by people who are less concerned with the workers or the company, and more concerned about keeping their own jobs (I mean the union bosses and administrators).

What's scary is that this guy is actually SMARTER than Bush. Where's the Clintons when you need them. Hilliary is going to mop the floor with republicans in 2008!

Not that Dean was ever likely to get this libertarian's vote, but he just managed to cement not *ever* getting it. I happen to live in one of those right to work states that he'd ovrturn by executive fiat if someone handed him a bill he wasn't going to pursue.

My knowledge of history is encyclopedic

...and is only exceeded by the depth of your self-esteem apparently.

I just read your "encyclopedic" response and no where in there do I see the words "Kentucky coalminers."

I'm just saying.

Last comment was for Mark Noonan.

Ara, maybe you should buy Mark a copy of The Proud Tower, by Barbara Tuchman, for Christmas... :)

One of the saddest episodes in American history was how the majority of business owners were so stupid for so long abour their own workers.