Imagine...A World Without Unions...

There are only a handful of views that I have held my entire life. One of them is my inherent dislike for unions (in industry - I'm not talking about marriage here). I remember (and I bet my Mom and Dad do as well) when I was around six-years-old, I made a mock placard and wore it around our home and our townhouse complex indicating, "I am on strike". I was mocking some strikers that I saw while on a car ride, and found out later that they were grumbling about something (you want to bet me a week's salary - yours, not mine - that it had something, somehow to do with wages? Every strike has to do with money, at some point, despite what you are told otherwise.

Years ago, I was talking with a friend with whom I had lost touch after high school, but we reconnected at the office in which we both worked. In subsequent "catch-up" conversations, we talked about something that most guys talk about at some point in their relational or friendship existence: cars. Specifically, what we are driving these days. No, the conversation was not for some sort of social status exchange, but we were curious as to what our tastes were in vehicles. To my surprise, he drove a Japanese car and swore by them, but I could have sworn myself that when I knew him in high school, he was a fan of domestics (I could be wrong). We both were raised in a town that was more or less a stone's throw away from a city that had a MAJOR General Motors plant. Anyhow, he went on to say something that resonated with me - and this was just his opinion, but I think there is much truth in it. He said that over time, he has become convinced that imports, and Japanese cars in particular, are not only a better value for the dollar, but are far better made, thus ensuring future reliability and performance. The reason he believes this is because, in his view, none of the Japanese automakers are unionized, whereas General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford all have their employees functioning under unions.

I couldn't disagree with him. If you look at Consumer Reports, GM, Ford, and Chrysler cars as a whole are generally considered less reliable, not as well made, and do not hold their value as well as imports, particularly Japanese cars. Worksmanship issues and component failure and premature replacement of parts is generally understood to be the norm for domestic cars. My friend suggested that it has to do with the unions because, with employees who are protected under a union, they really don't have much incentive to put forth excellent quality or develop efficiencies. In the end, they don't really need to work as hard, since they have union protection and even if you slack off, don't pay as close attention to details, or don't push yourself to work stronger, faster, smarter - in the end everyone gets the same raise amount.

Am I making a broad sweep of the brush here? Of course I am. Am I saying everyone who is in a union, is lazy? Of course not. But what I am saying is that unions provide the vehicle (no pun intended) in which such conditions of apathy and slothfulness can take place.

I have a friend, with whom I used to work in my company. He left our company due to his seeing that his job would eventually be phased out due to him working on an account that was snatched up by another company, who decided to in-source their IT services. Anyhow, my friend ended up as a contractor working for a very large, hydro-electric company. While he was a contractor, he was forced to do all the work? Why? Because the union guys would come in very late for work, spend some time drinking coffee, and then would all take off for a couple of hours for a Costco shopping trip - all on company time. I said to my friend whether he has a problem with this type of work mentality - his response surprised me - he said, "I want to be one of those guys!" Just a few weeks ago, I found out that he took a career step backwards, but as a result he is no longer a contractor and has been offered full time employment and become part of the workers' union there. It's interesting, because I had applied for a position at that company years ago (without knowing that even the IT staff were unionized), and they were ready to hire me, except for for the fact that shortly before they told me they were interested in me, the whole union went on strike (which eventually lasted for around three months). Had I taken that job earlier, I would have spent the first three months of my working career there on the picket line, but of course I would have never allowed it to get that far, and would have, by then, moved my sorry ass out of there.

It seems like everywhere there is a union, I hear these stories. My brother-in-law, who has a tremendously good work ethic, told me about his experience years ago in Windsor, when he spent summers working in a factory environment as a contractor. I'm not sure what they were manufacturing, but he was able to produce a certain amount of products on the assembly line, which was either triple or quadruple the production of the unionized workers. The unionized workers became irritated with him and thought he was showing them up. They wanted him to sit with them all day and play cards, but he was there to work, and decided to not participate. He told me that as a general rule, these union guys frown on those whose work production and efficiency makes them look bad, and they may even go as far as vandalizing your car or harrassing you for working harder and smarter than they were (if they were working at all). That is pretty sad.

I'm sure you have come across a union that has inconvenienced your life somewhere. Whether it was a general strike in Toronto, which included garbage collectors (which as a result, left thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of bags of garbage rotting on curbs and the street many years ago, or a strike by TTC (Toronto public transit) workers who amongst other things, wanted better working conditions or a wage increase (surprise surprise) even though the average bus driver makes freaking $55,000 a year, and as a result of the strike, commuters were left scrambling to find other means to get to work. Or teachers' strikes over "unfair working conditions", "too much workload" and too big class sizes (pretty bold for the union to make these demands - the public was not terribly sympathetic and rightfully so), which resulted in students being unable to go to school to learn or take exams, etc. Or nurses doing on strike, causing major issues with health care. Civil servants going on strike, delaying the processing of beneifts and pension cheques and what not. I am not sure whether there have been any strikes that have really brought the general public to the side of the strikers.

Unions used to have their place and were effective at a time where physical working conditions were horrible, where employees were run roughshod by management, and where there were gross inequities between pay amongst employees. These days, there are very few private companies who engage in such behaviour. Aside from it being culturally repugnant, such actions are frowned upon by most companies, who use external independent auditors to ensure that they are meeting and / or exceeding government-set standards for employement. Unlike years ago, there are not a plethora of agencies and companies who are in the business of ensuring companies are run ethically and professionally. Employment equity laws are galaxies beyond what they used to be (if they even existed at all). All of this really eliminates the need for a union whose purpose is questionable these day. I would argue that the presence of a union would entice people to apathy and general acceptance of the status quo, without finding ways to make things better, even if that means letting people go as a result. Make-work roles would not need to be constructed, and companies and governments can ensure that their money or taxpayer money is well spent, rather than farting it on employing a bunch of people who generally don't give a rat's ass about the job, but rather try to milk their job for all its worth.

I hope before I pass, I will be able to see the elimination of the traditional union, with all its socialist inefficiencies, protection of poorly performing workers, and its constant desire to squeeze the company or the government for as much as they can take, without making tough decisions that positively impact the bottom line.

EDIT on 9/26/2007: Since I wrote this entry, I read that GM had a national strike the last couple of days. I had no idea as I was not really following the news much. A U.S. union had some concerns about pension funds as well as job security (Like, what the hell? There's no job security in the private sector and there certainly should not be any in a union - I actually don't believe in guaranteed job security - it's just a formula to entice people to sit on their ass and not work to 100% efficiency. In today's marketplace of competitiveness and the need to outdo everyone else, only the cream of the crop should be employed by companies - as my Dad would say, get rid of the dead wood. Given the fact that GM, Chrysler and Ford are behind in sales and customer satisfaction compared to Japanese and European car makers, they need to do some serious internal restructuring to be able to compete with their foreign counterparts. Having no guaranteed job security would make people nervous, yes, but it would also force people to aspire to work better, smarter, and more efficiently, producing a better product). Anyhow, along with the tentative deal comes a $3000.00 signing bonus (there's that money again). Sheesh... The sad thing is, the decision of a U.S. union forced the closure of Canadian plants, putting tens of thousands of people out of work for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure most of these folks need their job and had no say in the strike. But that's the problem with being part of a union.