He’s baaaack. He’s run in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004, and his Olympics style effort to be the Energizer campaigner, regardless of whether or not his ideas have any hope of making it to the White House, continues. I confess, I voted for the guy in 2000. A lot of the things he has to say make sense to me. What I like about him is his ability to cut through the crap and say the unpopular thing. It’s unpopular to say that spending 3.8 million dollars in a single month working on your image to get elected to political office is a criminally irresponsible waste of resources, but it’s reality. It’s unpopular to point out that choosing to buy the new gadget with a “stimulus” instead of paying off the old debt is not healthy for the economy, but it’s reality. It’s *exceedingly* unpopular to point out that the Western world is flatly incapable (through force, through occupation, or through spending) of moving Islamist rhetoric to the comfortable middle ground of tolerance for economic practices which *do* threaten the traditional way of life and government that provide fertile ground for raising new generations to believe in enemies of their faith, but it’s reality.
In 2000, I was only barely applying what I had learned in economics and history to the decisions I made in the voting booth. I was six months pregnant, and I was disillusioned with the realities of life five years out of high school… for some reason, I had dropped out of college earnestly believing that just being smart would generate wealth in my life. I knew I would find my niche without tying myself to a curriculum that I didn’t enjoy studying.
What I didn’t see was a job market that reflected those beliefs. I saw a world that, as Hobbes pointed out, was nasty and brutish, and not at all promising. Ralph Nader spoke to the idealist in me that wanted it to be different. Where privilege was not so much a privilege as it was a right. Where the evil capitalists that made life hard were overthrown by the forces of “reason”.
Eight years have changed me a lot more than they have changed him… understandably. When I look at his blog, I see a guy who is still pointing to the right problems. Multi-million dollar silver parachutes for corporate executives when workers on the front lines can’t afford to keep up with the rising cost of living do hurt the economy, and the current political culture is not doing anything to change it. The difference is that I no longer feel that it is government’s responsibility to stop it from happening. It’s on the backs of the people that these changes need to occur, or not at all. If corporations choose to cut wages to the point where workers cannot pay the bills, then those workers will find other jobs. If those jobs aren’t available because corporations have cut the costs in such a way that private industry can’t compete, then the economy will suffer. If corporations don’t realize that loyal and well paid employees produce better work and better profits, then this is ultimately a problem for the business schools to address. They’ll do it effectively, or the economy will collapse, and not an ounce of assistance from the government will change that, either way.
So, Nader, I must respectfully decline your offer to cure all of our social ills. I agree with you on many issues, but I don’t think your solutions are SMART enough. They may be specific. They may be measurable. But they are neither attainable, realistic, nor are they timely… and frankly, I doubt they ever will be. Nasty, brutish, and short, this life is what we make of it. The government can’t solve it for us, and it frequently makes things worse when it tries.
Nader's importance is that he provides and exposes the information that people, institutions, corporations and government need to understand the probelms and then develop solutions, if the collective will and desire to do so exists and can be mobilized.
Yeah, I have some similar feelings. Add that to his ridiculous, "It wasn't my doing, they could have done something different too!" defenses, and I just see another smart guy who's happy to use his privilege to feel smug about being right without taking responsibility for the pain his own choices have brought.
Ralph Nader reminds me of Bob Kirchner. Pompous, full of himself, not particularly useful, and willing to harm others for his own self-aggrandizement.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
The message of this post seems to be "I am now smarter than Ralph Nader". Which is an interesting conclusion to draw considering the author, who claims to have taken classes in economics, believes that business schools are a better tool for regulating an economy than a government. And while most of us applaud the notion that "the people" need to be the agents of change in an unfair economy, I wonder how that is possible without government protection of the worker's right to organize? We've seen a dramatic decline in union membership in this country over the last 25 years, and much of that has to do with the government's disinterest in enforcing labor laws. Where does this reality fit into the idea that "assistance from the government can't change anything at all"?
I also voted for Nader in 2000, and I may vote for him again. Unlike Xian, I don't see his candidacy as the reason Gore lost in 2000. Eight years of mediocre "third way" policies from the Clinton administration is the real culprit. Instead of asking why Nader ran in 2000, maybe we should be asking why 90-some-thousand Floridians voted for him in the first place.
The answer is not because Nader is dumb and advocates of laissez-faire economics are smarter. Real change is difficult. It is scary, and it challenges not only our comfort levels but also our sense of security. Nader is a force for moving the Democratic Party to the left, just as rogue candidates like Ron Paul will tug the Republicans to the right. It is fair to challenge his policies on their merits, and it is fair to question his fitness for leadership. But it seems extremely unfair to complain that he is exercising his right as a citizen to run for higher office.
If his policies are so bankrupt that Americans are really ready to embrace the market forces without government assistance, as the author promotes, then he will hardly generate enough support to make a difference. If, on the other hand, Nader has his finger on the pulse of what many Americans really feel, then his candidacy can only be good for America.
Nader is an American hero. If it wasn't for him, we would not have the NHTSA* to protect us from death traps like the Corvair ;) Thank God for government intervention.
But in all seriousness, he should run. Obama is as liberal as you can get (according to his voting record), but he is trying to come across as a middle of the road, reasonable guy. With Nader to his left, he'll be forced to be more honest about his views. Truth in advertising is a good thing, especially when not forced by the government.
*for those who don't get the joke, the NHTSA concluded that the Corvair was not prone to rolling over as Nader suggested and found that it was just as safe as other cars at the time.
It is probably worth noting that the Corvair was the first American automobile to feature the swing-axle rear independent suspension with the air-cooled, rear-mounted engine. These cars are no longer made because they were found the be extremely accident-prone, rolling over at very low speeds. Contrary to the previous posters assertions, numerous lawsuits were settled to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs and caused GM to discontinue this practice.
Also of note are simple consumerist changes that can be attributed back to Nader. Ever get a travel voucher for being bumped from a flight? Nader's 1972 lawsuit did that. Ever get an X-Ray and wonder why your chest is covered with a lead apron? Thanks to Nader again. Ever wonder why every car produced in America has seat belts? Nader. Try to find a car company that doesn't trumpet the safety records. Who tests these cars again? Thanks to Nader.
He might be a left-leaning candidate, and he might be a spoiler. These are all legitimate criticisms. But to imply that he his campaigns on behalf of consumers are anything less that noble, productive, and essential causes is just dishonest.
Hi Anonymous,
I think you are confused about what an assertion is. When I say that the NHTSA concluded that the Corvair is not in fact prone to rolling over more than other cars, I am not making an assertion, I'm stating a fact.
I'm sure Nader sees himself as noble, just like all liberals do. And I'm sure he feels he is helping people. And if you only look at the "positive effects" of what he does, then it's easy to call his actions productive. As far as essential, well, that doesn't really mean anything so I won't bother.
Adam,
I seriously doubt that Obama will change his campaign strategy in the slightest because of Nader's decision to call attention to himself and his ideas again.
Anonymous,
"Smarter than" is an awful fine thing to determine. I'm not claiming to be "smarter than" Nader. I see big gaping holes in his ideas that prevent me from taking him seriously, and I have my own opinions about how best to solve the things that I see as problematic as well. He may be "smarter than" me, and I may be completely wrong. One of the reasons why I put my ideas out there is to see what kind of holes other people poke in them and refine them accordingly.
Nowhere in my post did I say unions are bad (ironically enough, I'm actually a member of the CWA, and have been for a little over four years now), and I certainly didn't say that "assistance from government can't change anything at all". What I said was that I did not believe Nader's ideas about the role of government and the nature of the economy were practical. "Real change" can come in many forms. Not all of them actually work in the real world.
Kem
When I say that the NHTSA concluded that the Corvair is not in fact prone to rolling over more than other cars, I am not making an assertion, I'm stating a fact.
I have no idea which one of you is correct, but simply saying that you're "stating a fact" does little to persuade me. Please attach accompanying citations that would lead me to believe you over him/her. The same goes for the other side.
"does little to persuade me"
Luckily I'm not concerned with persuading you.
Luckily I'm not concerned with persuading you.
And luckily, nobody cares what you have to say, either, because it's just more conservative hate for the consumer.
----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
JustKem -
I apologize if I have misinterpreted your writing. When you said, "I agree with you [Nader] on many issues, but I don’t think your solutions are SMART enough." I assumed you were implying that the ideas you support are smarter than Nader's and, therefore, you are also smarter than him. I guess I was wrong?
Also, you said, "They’ll [the business schools] do it effectively, or the economy will collapse, and not an ounce of assistance from the government will change that, either way." Whick I took as a refutation of government interference in the economy. You actually did use absolute terms in this passage. I took you to mean that any government interference in the economy is going to be a negation of positive change and we are better off leaving it to the business schools. Which actually doesn't make much sense, so I can see that I probably misread that as well.
I am glad you are a member of a union. It seems that your ideas actually require the use of worker organization. It would be very helpful if the federal government would get serious about making organization easier, and helping it to spread to new industries, like the service sector. It is my opinion that this is one area where the government can, in fact, make a very positive change in the economy to help mollify some of the negative side-effects of a capitalist economy.
"And luckily, nobody cares what you have to say, either, because it's just more conservative hate for the consumer."
Whoa. Rebut Adam if you like, but hating consumers is not a conservative or liberal position. And Adam isn't exactly conservative. He's ultra-libertarian.
I assumed you were implying that the ideas you support are smarter than Nader's and, therefore, you are also smarter than him. I guess I was wrong?
No problem. The "SMART" thing is something I picked up when I was in sales-- it's an acronym that helps define whether or not goals are reasonable.
You actually did use absolute terms in this passage.
Yes, but I was stating that the larger problems Nader addresses are endemic to a certain mindset in the corporate culture and in a consumer society that prefers to vacation on the credit cards instead of preparing for retirement. I do not think that the government has the ability to change that mindset... what's good for business and what's bad for business are ultimately at the discretion of the business owner. (Same with the consumer.) Those business owners (and, particularly, the consultants that they hire) are still open to suggestions about effective practices and healthy economic trends while they are in school. So, yes, I think a part of the solution lies in the way that we value workers who are both loyal and productive at every level. I also think it lies in the responsibility of parents to model healthy financial practices for their children and teach them to make good choices with their money. That's not the government's job, and I do mean that in absolute terms.
It seems that your ideas actually require the use of worker organization.
Yep.
It would be very helpful if the federal government would get serious about making organization easier, and helping it to spread to new industries, like the service sector.
I'm not an advocate of the "living wage" movement. Workers who don't feel valued by their company have two options. 1) demonstrate value and demand a raise, or 2) find a different job where you have the chance to demonstrate value and earn a raise. Again, not the government's job. If any Joe off the street can do your job as well as you can for less money, then the value of your job is exactly what Joe from off the street is willing to accept in payment.
It is my opinion that this is one area where the government can, in fact, make a very positive change in the economy to help mollify some of the negative side-effects of a capitalist economy.
When it comes to regulations that protect the health of the workers, prevent descrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, or religious preference, help keep employees from losing their jobs when circumstances require them to be away from work on leave, and give employees protection when reporting unfair or unlawful practices, I'm with you. When it comes to cracking down on ENRON-type fiascos, I'm with you. 100%. When you cross over the line and start talking about "unfair" compensation, I get very, very nervous. Unlike the government, businesses that operate at a defecit don't last to continue paying their employees.
Kem
Rebut Adam if you like, but hating consumers is not a conservative or liberal position.
Eh, hating business and America isn't a liberal position, either, but that seems to be consensus in many other threads.
Rebuttal: Adam, I'd like to see some proof of your claim that Nader is wrong and that isn't why GM changed it's practice. Everything I've read says what the anon above said about Nader is accurate, yet you choose to dismiss it as "fact" without any evidence to support.
----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
Arvid,
There's no doubt that "Unsafe at Any Speed" did some good things for consumers, but Nader's specific complaints about the Corvair with regards to its tendancy to flip were investigated. "In its July 1972 "Evaluation of the 1960-1963 Corvair Handling Stability" NHTSA concluded that the handling tests reflected extreme driving techniques that would result in almost any production car flipping over and thus, GM's test reports were not incriminating against the Corvair in particular." (link)
Wikipedia has direct quotes from the study listed under the "Other Criticism" section, but linking the actual study doesn't look like it's an option. I wasn't able to find it online anywhere.
Kem
Arvid, my "claim" is that the NHTSA studied the handling of the Corvair and found that it was no worse than other cars. Do you want me to buy the report from the government for $52 and mail it to you? Either that, of you can try using a better search engine and you can read all you want about it.
Honestly, I don't know what you want from me. It clearly isn't about this very simple point. Do you want proof that the government issued the report that I'm talking about? It's pretty easy to verify that what I'm saying is true. Try searching corvair and NHTSA.
For the record, I am not an advocate of government control of wages. Or prices for that matter. That would be socialism, not something that the world is ready for. Maybe 2108, but not 2008.
On the other hand, I am a big advocate of worker organizing (labor unions) as an effective means to protect workers from capitalist excesses. We've seen pretty clearly over the last couple of centuries what happens when workers are not organized. The National Labor Relations Board is currently staffed with former members of the corporate sector who have changed the rules to actually making organizing more difficult. And we've seen the results of this inaction. Some of the areas of concern you mentioned in your original post are almost direct results of the government's laissez-faire attitude toward unions in general. Again, I see the NLRB as an effective tool of the government for helping to guarantee fair labor practices in the private sector. If it is dismantled, or defanged, for political purposes, bad things will result.
Nader is the only one who will honestly address the issue of worker organizing as a remedy to current economic problems. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all under the mistaken (imo) impression that less unions mean a better economy. The facts don't bear that notion out, but they do believe it.
Thanks for the discussion. This is a very interesting topic and something that needs to be discussed more frequently. If nothing else, a serious Nader campaign would bring this discussion to the fore more often.
Anonymous,
I hear the (sometimes,frankly, legitimate) concerns of people who feel that unions are bad for business and bad for employees. When they act as advocates and their demands are reasonable, they are invaluable. When they act as shields for incompetence or abuse of policies, and their demands are not possible to meet, they are just as destructive as any socialist regime.
And yes, I agree that oversight boards for labor should be fair and impartial. If you've got a solution to greed and corruption in politics, I'm listening. Everyone agrees that it's no good for the country, but practical solutions are in short supply.
Nader says he's got the cure. Color me skeptical.
Kem
No offense, Kem, but I don't think it is fair to say that greed and corruption in politics is uncurable. Governments run very efficiently and productively more often than not. Take the current administration. While it is arguable that they are one of the most corrupt Presidential administrations in American history (note: one of the most corrupt), they still do an amazing number of things right. In fact, if you really take a look at everything that happens on a daily basis in Washington, Springfield, or even Champaign governments you will find that the vast majority of the work goes on without corruption and without greed. MOST government employees are hard working, honest public servants who seek only to do their work well and feed their families.
So no, I don't think government is greedy and corrupt overall. But there are problem areas. Does Nader really think he has the cure? I doubt it. But I do think he understands where the energies and reforms need to be focused: on the working class. In fact, Nader has traditionally been one of the staunchest opponents of government corruption and waste. He has spent years of his life pointing out the bad guys and trying to help the good guys because he believes government can be an efficient, productive source of good. That is his mission.
You want a place to start, try firing the foxes who are guarding the hen house over at the NLRB.
None taken, and I welcome the chance to toss this sort of thing around. Out of curiosity, do you consider the living wage a socialist policy?
As far as greed and corruption goes, there are some areas of government that tend to attract the greedy and the corrupt more often than others. Oversight of business strikes me as the one where special interest groups from both sides of the debate are most likely to clash, and wherever there's a conflict of that magnitude surrounding the bare bones of profit margins and government regulation, there's likely to be a mess of it. The unions are hardly exempt from the greed and corruption business, and I sincerely doubt that the presence of any one man in the White House is going to change that.
Now if we could get the special interest groups on board with ethical philosophies that weren't aimed at extracting the maximum amount of profit for one group at the expense of the other, that would be great... but by definition, it's impossible. It's not so much the foxes and the hens as it is a symbiotic relationship versus a parasitic one. The difference is knowing when to say when, and the NLRB can only do so much to foster healthy attitudes. If the culture is wrong, you're left with a pendulum swinging back and forth... and small businesses filling in the cracks.
That's how I see it, at least. But then, all I've had is high school economics and a little trip through the school of hard knocks. Maybe Nader knows some way to solve those problems that I'm not hearing him talk about? One things for certain, a living wage doesn't strike me as the best answer.
Kem
That would be socialism, not something that the world is ready for. Maybe 2108, but not 2008.
More like 1908. Socialism is dead, and it's not coming back, at least not as a viable alternative for this country. That's far different from a social safety net, which is well enough, although I would put wage and price controls firmly in the category of socialism, and not safety net.
As for Nader's contention that he's going to increase government regulation and do away with corruption, as George Will never got tired of pointing out when John Edwards was still in it, you don't get rid of money and influence in politics by injecting politics into business decisions - you will get the opposite outcome. Once businesses have more at stake from what the government does, they will work harder to influence politics. One would be better served by deciding to push for either more government or less lobbying, rather than trying to do both and having neither work out very well.
I'm not sure if I believe that union membership is so low because government isn't protecting workers' rights to organize. I just don't see a huge number of people out there that really want to be in unions and can't because of government action / inaction. In a competitive global economy, businesses with unionized workforces have a much more difficult time adapting to change and competing, especially with low wage economies. The sectors of the American workforce that are the most heavily unionized are the ones with the least competition, both domestically and internationally - public sector workers, public transport workers, K-12 teachers, etc. The reason why there aren't as many unionized steel workers, for example, is because high union wages and inflexible work rules contributed heavily to those jobs moving overseas.
With all that said, I welcome Nader's entrance to the race, as well as others on both the right and left. There's nothing that says that there only have to be two parties, and the Republicans, for example, were once a minor third party. I thought that the way that Nader was kept out of the 2000 debates reflected very poorly on the major parties (he was threatened with arrest if he even entered the hall, despite the fact that he had a ticket), and the idea that he cost the Democrats the election smacked of arrogance. There was this idea that the Democrats would have gotten all of the votes that Nader got if he wasn't running - well, he was running, and that's how the democratic process works, and if you don't like it, hard cheese. Gore couldn't carry his home state, nor beat Bush after years of economic growth. The margin of victory in Florida for Bush was less than the vote tallies for *any* of the dozen or so third party candidates that were on the ballot in that state, but you never hear about any of those other guys "costing Gore the election." Nader didn't lose the election for Gore, Gore lost the election for Gore.
Regarding the previous poster, "D-Man": I appreciate the response and your willingness to state what so many seem to believe. Mainly, that today's workers are not particularly interested in unions, and that union membership is a negative when it comes to competitiveness in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, neither of these theories has much data to support it.
For example, recent studies have found that American workers overwhelmingly support labor unions, and the majority of non-union workers would join a union if they could. Unfortunately, as I outlined above, the federal government has done a poor job ensuring the right of workers to organize over the last twenty years. And the last seven years have been a particularly difficult time for non-unionized workers, as large corporations (like Wal-Mart to use an obvious example) are continually supported legally when they fire workers who attempt to organize their workforce.
I do not have the time right now to address your other point, about competitiveness, except to say that I have never seen solid evidence that proves labor unions negatively impact a companies competitiveness or ability to change. I would be open to reading any sources you have on that topic, but I would just mention briefly that the American economy depends on a solid middle class with purchasing power. Without that middle class the economy will cease to grow. Union membership was (arguably) the driving force for the creation of the vibrant middle class in the last century, and as we have seen union membership decline we have also seen to shrinking of the American middle class. Far from being a negative for business, union membership creates a large swatch of well-paid workers who can afford to consume the products produced in the durable good sector, which is the cornerstone of a health economy.
But as I said, I would be happy to respond to any studies you have showing a clear link between union membership and a decline in competitiveness, productivity, or innovation.
Anon 12:47 - the first link that you give me is to an abstract, where the full article is behind a pay wall, so I couldn't read it.
The second link that you give, to the article that suggests that more Americans would join unions "if they could" (again, I hardly see much evidence of them being kept from doing it) may very well be correct. It is, however, published by the Agenda for Shared Prosperity, a subsidiary of the Economic Policy Institute, which is the labor movement's think tank. Again, it may well be correct, but it's hardly an unbiased source of information. Furthermore, the research doesn't assert that a majority of nonunion workers would vote for a union at all, but rather that 32% of nonrepresented workers and 90% of represented workers would. Beyond the fact that only a third of nonunion workers would even consider joining a union, perhaps the big news is that 10% of workers currently in unions wouldn't vote to be in one if they had the option - and this from the pro-union think tank.
Additionally, it's a pretty big jump to say that the 32% of nonrepresented workers are *unable* to vote to be in a union, and are somehow stymied by the government or their employers. What's more likely the case is that they *would* vote for a union if one were presented to them, but one is not, nor are they themselves motivated to form a union and lobby the other workers to join. In other words, they would join a union if they saw that they would take home more money, but they don't feel exploited enough to actually get the ball rolling.
I guess that I could go hunting for articles that support my point of view, but I'm really not an article link poster. So many of these come with axes to grind anyway - the article from the pro-union think tank, a rebuttal from the Chamber of Commerce, etc. And quite frankly, there's no article that you could post that would ever convince me that a business can unionize, pay more for labor costs and benefits, be more restricted about what it can ask its workers to do, and promote people based on seniority rather than merit - and not face any decline in competitiveness, productivity, or innovation. If unions didn't reduce competitiveness, productivity or innovation, then business people would be a little more welcoming of them.
The whole thing is very Naderish - he's very fond of saying that a majority of the people support this or that set of bullet points that he believes - but he never gets electoral support to match. If a majority of Americans wanted to be in unions, they would be. If they felt that they were thwarted in that desire by the government and special interests, they would elect Ralph Nader or someone like him to change it. They haven't done any of that.
Unfortunately you don't seem to have read the entire report. The numbers you cite (32%/90%) come from the earlier surveys of the 1980s and 1990s. The new numbers are much higher. I'd encourage you to go back and read to the bottom of the report. Just reading the first couple of paragraphs can be misleading.
Also, I am not sure if you are arguing against the EPI's findings in general, or if you have a specific complaint about how they conducted their survey. Unfortunately, simply claiming that an organization has a bias does little to address the point. Do you challenge the way the questions were worded? Are you unimpressed by the way they compiled their data? Claiming the people at EPI are manipulating numbers for a political point is a pretty serious charge. These are professionals, after all. Do you have anything specific you'd like addressed?
While I understand your point-of-view about the negative impact of unions on businesses, your overall point seems to rest on the idea that having a union in the workplace will cut back on the profit margin of that business. And it is true that many American corporations have witnessed record profits since they de-unionized their workforce. But that hardly equates to a lack of profitability due to unions. In fact, it is quite easy to make the argument that these corporations would have performed quite well even if they had not de-unionized their workforce by moving their production facilities overseas (or into Latin America). They might not have made record profits, but they would still be afloat, still profitable and, most importantly, still contributing to the perpetuation of an American middle class. Instead they are making record profits while laying off millions of workers and employing foreign workers for pennies on the dollar. Over the long haul this strategy is not actually in their best interest, unless they are willing to slash their prices (and their profits) to sell to the workers in these foreign countries.
And while I also understand your disdain for dueling reports, I do think it is important to back up ideas with facts. It is much more difficult to do the leg work to support generalized, common sense arguments - especially on the internet. But in the long run that is the only way to know that what we are talking about is true. Otherwise we are just making generalized statements that might be true, or might just be something we heard repeated by the media over a long period of time. As many of us know, the media finds a story line and sticks to it. That doesn't mean that story is true.
Unfortunately you don't seem to have read the entire report. The numbers you cite (32%/90%) come from the earlier surveys of the 1980s and 1990s.
Yes, but reading down further, into the footnotes: "But not all recent surveys, however, show such high proportions wanting to unionize as does the Hart survey. A 2005 Zogby poll reports that 36% of nonunion workers were likely to vote union, which is 4 points (13%) above the 32% WRPS estimate for 1994-95 but far below the 53% Hart estimate for that year."
So perhaps the question should be: when unemployment went below 4-5%, which many economists didn't think was possible twenty years ago, and when the economy was expanding, why exactly were people suddenly clamoring to join unions - or was Hart's information wrong? Things held pretty steady for him until the past few years, when the graph line starts jumping all over the page, and without any major economic events that were driving those numbers.
Do you challenge the way the questions were worded?
From the report: "From 1996 to 2005, Peter D. Hart Research Associates asked a more nuanced set of questions about the relationship between management and workers [than the old question, if labor-management relations were excellent, good, fair or poor]. The firm asked whether management had too much power compared to workers, workers had too much power compared to management, or if there was a pretty fair balance of power between management and workers."
Yes, I do challenge the way the questions are worded, or at least that one. They stopped asking about labor-management relations and started talking about power relationships - it's so leading. Of course the management has "too much power compared to the workers" in most businesses - they can take away their livelihoods. You could say the same about most, if not all, of the places on one of those "best places to work" lists - what's the point?
Are you unimpressed by the way they compiled their data?
Judging by the unexplained jump in people wanting to join unions, but not actually doing so, yes, yes I am unimpressed.
Instead they [companies] are making record profits while laying off millions of workers and employing foreign workers for pennies on the dollar. Over the long haul this strategy is not actually in their best interest, unless they are willing to slash their prices (and their profits) to sell to the workers in these foreign countries.
Companies' main objective is to make profits, and record profits if possible. They are laying off American workers in industries like textiles and heavy manufacturing because they are simply no longer profitable to operate in the US. If they don't move their production overseas, some other company will, or overseas companies will open factories in those countries and still force American companies out of business. And although they may be paying foreign workers considerably less than they would pay American workers, they often pay more than the local going rate...which is one of my main complaints about the American labor movement - they are so keen to save their own jobs, they effectively work to deny jobs to people that are much poorer than they are. If I believed all of their rhetoric about economic justice, I would think that the thing to do would be to move more jobs to India and China, not less.
And while I also understand your disdain for dueling reports, I do think it is important to back up ideas with facts.
Oh good heavens no! Better to just go with your gut. ;-) But it's like I said, I'm sure that there are plenty of reports that rebut your assertions at the US Chamber of Commerce website. I am, by my own admission, too lazy to look them up, but feel free to browse around for them.
D. Boon,
<< If unions didn't reduce competitiveness, productivity or innovation, then business people would be a little more welcoming of them. >>
You really hit the nail on the head, there. If you're in a union, your pride in doing the job well and going the extra mile is really the only thing that drives you to learn and improve. Unions do a good job keeping people in skilled trades earning what they are actually worth, IF they continue to learn as they gain seniority. I've saved my company quite literally hundreds of thousands, (likely millions, if I think hard about the numbers game here) of dollars in business over the years I've been here just because I know my job inside out and backwards and can solve the problems that stump the majority of my co-workers, etc.... (I know, modest, aint' I...)
But I know people who have been here just as long who are out-performed by motivated people who want to learn and have only been here for a few months. When the raises are guaranteed, there's really nothing more than personality and good management to keep workers challenging themselves to do their best and continue growing... and corporations that are union typically wind up short-changing the middle-managers to keep up with the unions' demands-- which tends to drive out the good managers who can do better in small businesses.
But that's just my two cents...
Kem
D.Boon? Oh my, no, I'm D-Man. Big difference...D.Boon and I have had some good natured back-and-forths, but disagree on a lot of stuff. He's probably not as handsome as me either.
I've worked in a few union shops (once as a member of the union, and once as a seasonal nonunionized employee). I was somewhat startled at how poison the atmosphere could be - at one of them, management wasn't even allowed in the break room, and there was constant bad feelings by both sides. All of the employees felt that they had lifelong job security, but talked about it as if it were a prison sentence, and not many seemed to have any sort of job satisfaction. You are right about the lack of motivation - the main one that I saw at work was the desire to not be yelled at for not doing something that they were supposed to be doing. There was never any sort of incentive to come up with new ideas, and in one of the places that sort of thing was looked upon as brown-nosing. It was way too much like a high school - but at least I got to hang with the cool kids!
Eeep. Right... next time I'm on a 15 minute break, I'll read instead of skimming. On lunch now, and yeah. A bit of a difference in the overall message there.
RE: Differences in appearance, it's good to know I'm not the only one who revels in a modesty deficiency. :P
RE: Everything else, sounds about right.
Kem