Unions, Productivity, and the Automakers Crisis

Workers' unions came about because of terrible working conditions and employers who mistreated their employees. Employers were abusing their power and their workers. Unions have been responsible, at least in part, for improving working standards and conditions.

But the pendulum has long since swung to the other side. It is now the unions that are abusing their power and the workers they claim to represent. There are many things that can be said about the actions and effects of today's unions, but let the following non-exhaustive list suffice:

• Today's unions do not balance the needs of workers with the needs of employers and managers. Workers are best served when they are fairly treated and compensated, but also when such treatment and compensation does not threaten the profitability and stability of their jobs and livelihood - the company for which they work. Many recent union "wins" are thus actually losses. Unions are too opposed to management and ownership to seek the common good.
• Today's unions make financial sense for those at the top, but not necessarily for those at the bottom. Union bosses are very well compensated, but does the average worker recover the losses incurred after strike pay runs out during a lengthy strike?
• Today's unions are political. It can be argued that it is for the good of the workers to support a political party that is likely to be sympathetic to union demands. But do political contributions represent the diversity of political support among the union members? And what can be said, for instance, of the CAW boss Buzz Hargrove's official letter to Prime Minister Harper taking a political stand during the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006? Did his recommendations represent the majority view of union members? Even if it did, what business is it of CAW's to make political pronouncements?
• Today's unions actually discourage creativity, efficiency, productivity.

This last one likely has a lot more to do with today's Big Three auto crisis than any one is letting on. It's a systemic problem, and any real solution to the automaker crisis must deal with it. More in this great read at Pajamas Media - Rand Simberg: Detroit’s Downturn: It’s the Productivity, Stupid. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing - there are some mind-boggling and telling examples of the union mentality.

But almost all of the discussion, when it comes to UAW culpability, has been on wages. The even larger issue, though, is the elephant in the room that seemingly no one discusses, even when given a political opportunity... And it’s not like people are unaware of it, at least people familiar with the industry. The issue isn’t wages — though those are a problem — so much as work rules. UAW work rules, which have evolved over the many decades since the passage of the Wagner Act, are the biggest reason that General Motors is uncompetitive with its non-union American counterparts.

What are work rules? They are agreements negotiated in the contract between management and the union covering how the employees are to be classified, how many breaks they get, how much time off they get, who can do which jobs, how discipline is to be enforced, etc. The goal of the rules is not to enhance productivity or production quality. It is to provide opportunities for featherbedding, increase numbers of (overpaid) jobs for union workers, and minimize how much they have to actually work. This is important because it’s at least in theory possible that the industry could be making money even at current wages, if they could be provided with the flexibility to increase worker productivity.

Fighting the War on Life Issues

At a recent Campaign Life Coalition luncheon, Former Liberal MP Tom Wappel - well-known for his pro-life stance - took the Roman Catholic Church to task for its lack of support for him and others fighting the war on the life issues. But his criticism was constructive and offered 13 specific recommendations to give that support.

These are suggestions from someone who spent 20 years in federal parliament, who was a member of the Pro-Life Caucus, who understands the fight from that perspective. So these recommendations are instructive for all who want to return to a respect for life. From LifeSiteNews, Tom Wappel's 13 Recommendations for Catholic Clergy and Bishops:

Number 13 - Engage the congregation to think about there [sic] faith... how can you speak in favor of the freedom to "choose" for example, or same-sex marriage or some type of euthanasia?

Number 12 - have educational meetings at the Church, I would recommend, once a month. Invite speakers on issues such as abortion, marriage, euthanasia, and publicize it well.

Number 11 - invite the local Member of Parliament, the local Member of Provincial Parliament and the councillor to these meetings.

Number 10 - Encourage the Catholic Women's League and the Knights of Columbus, if you have them in your parish, to seek meetings with the local MP's about the life issues and have them report back on those meetings.

Number 9 - Encourage parishioners to be engaged in public policy debate. Encourage them to write to their representatives when they run across issues that they feel strongly about - express their opinions.

Number 8 - Talk to the principals and staff, if you are allowed to do so, at all the Catholic schools in your parish and walk them through the issues - as you do the parishioners.

Number 7 - engage with the students at all levels about the life issues. It is never too young, in my opinion, to talk about a respect for life.

Number 6 - encourage your fellow priests and pastors of other denominations,

Number 5 - encourage and, indeed, insist that the Bishops institute these kinds of practices nation-wide in an organized manner...

Number 4 - ... the CCCB should meet with the representatives of the Parliamentary pro-life caucus,

Number 3 - provide your parishioners, at all times, and in particular during an election campaign, with specific sources where they can accumulate information about candidates.

Number 2 - Advise parishioners on the exact positions of the candidates on the life issues.

Number 1 - ...the entire congregation [should] pray to God that God would rekindle the fire of faith of those whose faith has been extinguished, stoke the smoldering embers of faith of those who are losing their faith and fan the flames of those whose faith is strong...

The Bush Legacy

I've argued often that history will judge George W. Bush much kindlier than current popular opinion. The typical rap is that he is an unintelligent, far-right ultraconservative, selfish theocon. These allegations are nearly all false, and are less supported by knowledge and fact than by emotions and intense ideological opposition. Bush is well-read and his Texas drawl hides his intelligence. He is not far-right or very conservative - in fact, his big-government approach was disappointingly centrist. His demeanour betrays self-confidence, but not selfishness. And he is less theocon than say, George Washington, or any of the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution - read a few of Bill Federer's American Minute pieces for a picture of this. But these things will come out with time.

However, as Victor David Hanson writes at the corner, it's not taking much time at all: Bush Through the Obama Prism.

Obama's victory (predicated on painting Bush as a Hoover/Nixon redux), more so even than perhaps a John McCain's, may do more for Bush's reputation that anyone ever imagined. And the Mumbai mess (over there, not here) will only empasize all this, as an array of old 9/11-era experts who used to warn us about radical Islam, then, in the subsequent respite at home, screamed that Bush fabricated a war against terror against bogeymen, and now in their third manifestation are paraded once more out to warn us about?—why, yes, radical Islam!