A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Trade union

Profit

by Leave a Comment

Exchange Money Conversion to Foreign Currency
(Photo credit: epSos.de)

Roughly put, profit (or loss) is the difference between what it costs to sell a product/service and what is received for that product/service. For example, if it costs me $1 to make and transport a widget to the purchaser and the widget sells for $5, then I would make a profit of $4 on each widget sold. Naturally, the overall profit of my widget business would be a more complex matter involving total costs, total income and so on. But the basic idea is profit is what one gets when the cost is lower than what is received for the product/service.

As a general rule, just as Trix is for kids, profit is for employers and not employees. In fact, the stock criticisms of profit tend to focus on the fact that making a profit often involves paying workers less than the value they produce.  So, on the face of it, it seems like the idea of a worker making a profit is a non-starter. After all, the worker gets paid (hopefully) and the mechanism of a profit does not seem to figure in here. However, it seems interesting (though perhaps totally misguided) to consider the matter of a worker making a profit (as a worker, not in another role).

As noted above, profit occurs (crudely put) when the seller makes more for a sale than the sale costs her. One way to look at this is that the value paid by the purchaser exceeds the value of what is sold. In the case of a worker, it would seem that a profit-like situation would arise when a worker is paid more than the value of her work. That is, I would make something profit-like if I were paid more than I was worth. The gap between the value of my work and what I receive for it would be my “profit.”

In either case, it would seem that making a profit generally entails that someone is getting exploited. After all, if all those involved in producing the product got their just share of the value of the product, there would be no surplus left to provide the profit, unless the customer pays more than the value of the product. Likewise, if the worker is paid more than the value of her work, it would seem that she is exploiting the employer.

It can be countered that profit can arise without exploitation. One way for this to occur involves what could be called relative/subjective (or perceived) value. For example, if it costs me $1 to make a widget and I sell it for $5, yet the customer values it at $5 (or more), then it could be claimed the customer  is not being exploited. After all, as she sees it she is getting her money’s worth. However, it would also need to be the case that the workers involved in producing, transporting and selling my widget also regard themselves as properly compensated.  Likewise, if a worker values her work less than the employer values it, then it could be claimed that the employer is not being exploited. For example, if I valued my time at $30 an hour, but I was paid $50 an hour and my employer valued my time at at least $50 an hour, then I would not be exploiting my employer. Or, perhaps more accurately, she would not regard me as exploiting her.

The response to this is to contend that a person can be wrong about being exploited. In the case of a worker, he might regard his pay per widget as fair, but might be mistaken. One obvious cause could be ignorance: the worker is unaware of the value her labor adds to the product and if she were aware of this, she would change her mind about the fairness of her pay. Likewise for an employer: she might believe she is getting her money’s worth (or better) but be wrong about this because I am so very clever about appearing to be worth more than I am actually worth.  Naturally, it could be insisted that in matters of money all value is relative/subjective (or perceived) and that the idea of some sort of objective foundation for claims about exploitation is fundamentally mistaken. If so, this would also entail that the idea of some sort of objective foundation for claims about fair or just profits would also be fundamentally mistaken. Presumably it would come down to whoever had the most power defining what is called “just” and what is called “unjust.” In this case, it would seem most sensible for each party to endeavor to get as much as he can and to get it labeled as “fair” and “just.” That is, the employer should endeavor to get as much for as little pay as possible from employees and employees should endeavor to get as much as possible for as little work as possible from the employer. That is, in a profit focused system everyone should try to exploit everyone else while contending that they are being fair.

My Amazon Author Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

Education & Unions

by 12 Comments

Post-secondary educational organizations
Image via Wikipedia

While there are many excellent schools, there are also serious problems plaguing the American education system. People are, of course, eager to point fingers and these fingers are often pointed at teachers’ unions. Being a professor at a state school, it should hardly be a surprise that I am a member of the UFF, NEA and AFT. Because of this, my writing on this subject should be read with a critical eye so as to catch any bias in my claims or any trickery in my argumentation.

One stock argument against unions is based on the claim that the teachers’ unions are aimed at the good of the union members and this good is not always consistent with what is good for the students. There are, of course, harsher versions which involve claims that unions serve primarily to protect incompetent teachers and to do other wicked and damaging things.

This line of argument can have merit. After all, unions do (in theory) aim at benefiting their membership and the members of the teachers’ unions are teachers rather than students. There are also legitimate concerns that unions have enabled incompetent teachers to retain their jobs and that the lobbying power of teachers’ unions has been used in ways that might not lead to the best use of public money. That is, it could be argued that teachers’ unions function like pretty much all such organizations ranging from labor unions to corporations to political parties. This does not justify or excuse such behavior, but it does indicate that teachers’ unions are hardly unique in their sins. It also suggests that if organizations that serve the interest of their members but can be a detriment to the public good should be gotten rid of, then we should not just be rid of teachers’ unions but also corporations and political parties as well.

Of course, it would be absurd to rid society of all organisations that might act contrary to the public good-after all, this would undo much of society itself. Rather it would seem more sensible to address the alleged harms done by an organization so as to determine whether the organization should be changed (or perhaps destroyed). After all, to be rid of teachers’ unions because it is alleged that they have some role in the woes of education would seem to be on par with being rid of financial corporations because they happened to wreck the world economy (any only the most radical are suggesting that).

Turning back to teachers’ unions, there would seem to be two main avenues of legitimate criticism. One would be that  teachers’ unions are somehow intrinsically damaging to the education system. That is, it is simply the nature of these unions that they will, of necessity, cause trouble. Interestingly enough, some critics of capitalism make similar claims about corporations and other business: they must, by their very nature, be exploitative and harmful.

The idea that organizations such as unions and corporations are inherently harmful is certainly an interesting idea and one that would be well worth investigating in more detail. However, it seems unlikely that teachers organizing into unions must, of necessity, create harm to the education system. To support this, I offer two arguments.

First, there is the example of Finland. It has a unionized education system that is, in fact, excellent. As such, if unions were of necessity a bane to education, then Finland should be doing badly rather than well. Of course, it could be argued that Finland is an unusual exception. This takes me to my second argument.

Second, if  unions are a significant cause of educational woes (as some critics claim) in the United States and elsewhere, then one would expect to see correlation between the presence of unions and such woes. To use the obvious analogy, if a toxin causes disease, one would expect to see more cases of the disease in areas where to toxin concentration is higher. Interestingly enough, educational quality in the United States does not seem to correlate with the presence or absence of unions, but rather with other factors. In the case of K-12 public education, the quality and problems seem to match quite closely the poverty or wealth of the school and the community.  That is, “poor” schools tend to have far more problems than “rich” schools. As such, it would seem that it is not primarily a matter of unions (after all, rich and poor schools alike are unionized) but rather other factors.

It might be replied that unions are still a problem but that the money enables the schools to counter the damage done by unions (just as a wealthy community might be able to counter a toxin by having more money to spend on treatment and prevention). This is a point worth considering, but what would be needed would be evidence that the unions are doing the damage rather than the other factors that seem to correlate with educational woes.

In regards to the claim that unions are inherently harmful because the serve the interests of teachers, one rather obvious reply is that students have no union and the organizations that are most likely to act in ways that are in the interest of students are teachers’ unions. After all, these unions generally aim at things like better schools, better funding for educational programs and so on. That is, the interests of teachers overlap the interests of students and teachers’ unions tend to provide students with the only organized voice in the realm of politics. As such, teachers’ unions do not seem to be intrinsically bad. There is also the obvious concern of how eliminating these unions would actually improve education-that is, what group would step in to see to it that the interests of the students and teachers were being taken into account.

Another avenue of criticism is to raise specific problems that particular actions by unions or union members cause. For example, if a union acts to prevent incompetent teachers from being fired at a specific school, then this act could be legitimately criticized and such problems should be addressed.

In general, it would be rather odd if unions did not cause some problems. If they did not, they would be truly unique. However, it seems more sensible to address these problems rather than simply condemning unions. Given the fervor with which these unions are being attacked, it might be suspected that some folks stand to make a profit by getting rid of these unions. But perhaps that is merely cynicism on my part. After all, I am sure that the people funding the attacks on unions and the politicians who will attack them are merely driven by a love of the public good and are doing it for the children.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Education & Unions

by 12 Comments

Post-secondary educational organizations
Image via Wikipedia

While there are many excellent schools, there are also serious problems plaguing the American education system. People are, of course, eager to point fingers and these fingers are often pointed at teachers’ unions. Being a professor at a state school, it should hardly be a surprise that I am a member of the UFF, NEA and AFT. Because of this, my writing on this subject should be read with a critical eye so as to catch any bias in my claims or any trickery in my argumentation.

One stock argument against unions is based on the claim that the teachers’ unions are aimed at the good of the union members and this good is not always consistent with what is good for the students. There are, of course, harsher versions which involve claims that unions serve primarily to protect incompetent teachers and to do other wicked and damaging things.

This line of argument can have merit. After all, unions do (in theory) aim at benefiting their membership and the members of the teachers’ unions are teachers rather than students. There are also legitimate concerns that unions have enabled incompetent teachers to retain their jobs and that the lobbying power of teachers’ unions has been used in ways that might not lead to the best use of public money. That is, it could be argued that teachers’ unions function like pretty much all such organizations ranging from labor unions to corporations to political parties. This does not justify or excuse such behavior, but it does indicate that teachers’ unions are hardly unique in their sins. It also suggests that if organizations that serve the interest of their members but can be a detriment to the public good should be gotten rid of, then we should not just be rid of teachers’ unions but also corporations and political parties as well.

Of course, it would be absurd to rid society of all organisations that might act contrary to the public good-after all, this would undo much of society itself. Rather it would seem more sensible to address the alleged harms done by an organization so as to determine whether the organization should be changed (or perhaps destroyed). After all, to be rid of teachers’ unions because it is alleged that they have some role in the woes of education would seem to be on par with being rid of financial corporations because they happened to wreck the world economy (any only the most radical are suggesting that).

Turning back to teachers’ unions, there would seem to be two main avenues of legitimate criticism. One would be that  teachers’ unions are somehow intrinsically damaging to the education system. That is, it is simply the nature of these unions that they will, of necessity, cause trouble. Interestingly enough, some critics of capitalism make similar claims about corporations and other business: they must, by their very nature, be exploitative and harmful.

The idea that organizations such as unions and corporations are inherently harmful is certainly an interesting idea and one that would be well worth investigating in more detail. However, it seems unlikely that teachers organizing into unions must, of necessity, create harm to the education system. To support this, I offer two arguments.

First, there is the example of Finland. It has a unionized education system that is, in fact, excellent. As such, if unions were of necessity a bane to education, then Finland should be doing badly rather than well. Of course, it could be argued that Finland is an unusual exception. This takes me to my second argument.

Second, if  unions are a significant cause of educational woes (as some critics claim) in the United States and elsewhere, then one would expect to see correlation between the presence of unions and such woes. To use the obvious analogy, if a toxin causes disease, one would expect to see more cases of the disease in areas where to toxin concentration is higher. Interestingly enough, educational quality in the United States does not seem to correlate with the presence or absence of unions, but rather with other factors. In the case of K-12 public education, the quality and problems seem to match quite closely the poverty or wealth of the school and the community.  That is, “poor” schools tend to have far more problems than “rich” schools. As such, it would seem that it is not primarily a matter of unions (after all, rich and poor schools alike are unionized) but rather other factors.

It might be replied that unions are still a problem but that the money enables the schools to counter the damage done by unions (just as a wealthy community might be able to counter a toxin by having more money to spend on treatment and prevention). This is a point worth considering, but what would be needed would be evidence that the unions are doing the damage rather than the other factors that seem to correlate with educational woes.

In regards to the claim that unions are inherently harmful because the serve the interests of teachers, one rather obvious reply is that students have no union and the organizations that are most likely to act in ways that are in the interest of students are teachers’ unions. After all, these unions generally aim at things like better schools, better funding for educational programs and so on. That is, the interests of teachers overlap the interests of students and teachers’ unions tend to provide students with the only organized voice in the realm of politics. As such, teachers’ unions do not seem to be intrinsically bad. There is also the obvious concern of how eliminating these unions would actually improve education-that is, what group would step in to see to it that the interests of the students and teachers were being taken into account.

Another avenue of criticism is to raise specific problems that particular actions by unions or union members cause. For example, if a union acts to prevent incompetent teachers from being fired at a specific school, then this act could be legitimately criticized and such problems should be addressed.

In general, it would be rather odd if unions did not cause some problems. If they did not, they would be truly unique. However, it seems more sensible to address these problems rather than simply condemning unions. Given the fervor with which these unions are being attacked, it might be suspected that some folks stand to make a profit by getting rid of these unions. But perhaps that is merely cynicism on my part. After all, I am sure that the people funding the attacks on unions and the politicians who will attack them are merely driven by a love of the public good and are doing it for the children.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Should Unions be Exterminated?

by Leave a Comment

Cartoon shows poor child carrying a heavy load...
Image via Wikipedia

While public unions have been making headlines because of the attacks being launched against them, most pundits seem to agree that unions (public and private) have been in decline for quite some time.

One of the main arguments against unions is that they are harmful to the economy. In the case of public sector unions, it has been argued that they enable public employees to grow fat on the taxpayers’ money as protected parasites. In the case of private sector unions, it is often alleged that they force companies to spend far too much on wages and benefits and this helps destroy American competitiveness. The American auto industry provides a perfect case study of this problem.  The solution that is often suggested is curbing or even getting rid of unions.

While casting unions as villains has a certain appeal and unions have clearly contributed to many problems, unions do seem to have a legitimate and important role that they should play. This role is, of course, to provide workers with protection from mistreatment and exploitation.

While it is tempting to say that the public sector employees need no protection from the public, this would be a mistake and would be on par with claiming that people in power should be free to do as they will with state employees. However, there clearly need to be checks on the power of those in power and unions do help to provide one such check. Or, at the very least, it provides employees with a more effective means of resisting the agendas of politicians and other vagaries of politics.

In the case of private sector unions, it could be argued that they are not needed. After all, there are plenty of laws to protect workers and unions actually are burden (via dues) and an impediment. As such, unions should be eliminated for the good of all.

This does have some appeal and there are aspects of unions that certainly do need reform. However, exterminating unions is actually a bad idea-at least from the standpoint of workers.

While unions are weaker than corporations, they do provide some degree of protection to employees. After all, being part of an organized group provides more safety than merely going it alone. In fact, many of the arguments used to justify and defend corporations can also be used to justify and defend unions. If it is good for the corporate people to organize into a corporation, then it would seem good for the employees to organize as well. In the same vein, many of the arguments against unions can also be directed against corporations. After all, if it is bad for people to organize for economic purposes, then this would seem to apply to corporations as well.

Of course, this might be countered by saying that while the corporate folks need to organize into corporations, employees do not need to do so. After all, it could be argued, they are protected by the government and they do not need the extra protection that a union is supposed to provide.

While there are laws protecting employees, these laws can be changed by the lawmakers. And, of course, many of these lawmakers are heavily influenced by the corporations that donate to their campaigns and lobby them. Without the modest counter offered by unions, corporations would be able to influence politicians without much (or any) organized opposition on the part of employees.

It might be claimed that this would not be a problem. After all, corporations would not use such nearly unchecked influence to do anything really unfair or harmful to employees. Or would they?

Since I am not a senseless hater of corporations, I accept that some corporate folks are principled and willingly treat employees well. However, since I am also familiar with history and what people are capable of, I am well aware that some corporations would attempt to act in ways that would be unfair, exploitive and even harmful.

Those who doubt this can take a look back of the history of business in the United States. Some highlights include slave labor, child labor, horribly dangerous working conditions, using the US military to break strikes, and so on. For more recent examples, the behavior of some American corporations in other countries shows just what these people are in fact capable of. Even in the United States, corporations still engage in questionable practices. As such, the idea that corporations can be trusted to act well without an organized body of employees to provide some counter is absurd.

This is not to say that unions are without fault. They also have their problems. For example, American unions have often been linked to organized crime. As another example, teachers’ unions often protect incompetent teachers from being fired.  As a third example, American auto workers were able to secure so many benefits that they actually impaired the ability of their companies to compete. As such, unions do need to work on improvements. However, this is quite a different matter from getting rid of them.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Social Stability

by Leave a Comment

Protest March - Organised By The Unions
Image by infomatique via Flickr

One challenge that faces all societies is the maintenance of social  stability. In general, stability is desirable (although not at any price). To use an obvious metaphor, society is like a ship. If it becomes to unstable, it capsizes and this will tend to be

One aspect to maintaining social stability is ensuring that people are willing (or forced) to remain within the limits of the stability of the system in question. Naturally, there are important moral questions about the methods that should be used to maintain stability and about whether or not specific systems should be maintained. However, I will focus on a limited aspect of this topic. To be specific, I will address the current attacks on public employee unions, such as state unions and teacher unions.

Aided by the Tea Party and the corporations using the Tea Party organizations as fronts, some Republicans were elected as governors and then began to promptly start attacking public employee unions. While Wisconsin has been getting the headlines, Florida has also seen a sustained attack on public employees (with educators being a prime target). Obviously enough, these attacks are not aimed at balancing the budget or reducing taxes. After all, the folks in Wisconsin agreed to accepts cuts in order to offset the deficit created by the governor when he cut taxes for corporations. Rather, these attacks seem aimed at breaking up unions that have traditionally supported Democrats and also at breaking the ability of educators and state employees to resist the ideological agendas of those behind these “Tea Party” governors.

Unions have, of course, been demonized as part of the attack. The problems in education have been laid at the feet of the lazy, incompetent and overpaid educators as well as the union that is supposed to be devoted to protecting the worst teachers and presumably also to destroying education. Other public employees have also been cast as incompetent parasites who have grown fat upon tax dollars stolen from the people. These unions are also accused of having too much political clout and influence. It has also been claimed that allowing unions to participate in the political process means that unions might end up in negotiations with the very people they helped elect, thus giving them undue influence.

While unions do have their problems and these need to be addressed, the broad attack on public employees and unions does not seem to be justified. If they were justified, then these attacks could be seen as contributing to social stability by addressing undermining factors.

First, the idea that the unions are somehow the cause of states’ financial woes seems to be untrue. After all, the real cause of the woes seems to the economic crisis which was caused by corporations who just happen to be the darlings of the “Tea Party” governors. Second, the claim that state employees are overpaid relative to private sector workers is deceptive. While it is true that public employees make, on average, more than the average worker this is because most public employees have college degrees. When the salaries are adjusted in terms of education, public employees are underpaid relative to comparable private sector workers. So, bringing the public sector on par with the private sector would actually require raises for the public sector workers.

Second, the idea that teachers unions are the death of education seems to be mistaken. While unions do follow practices (such as protecting incompetent teachers) that are harmful to education, it is the practices rather than the unions that cause the problems. After all, Finland’s top-notch education system is unionized. However, I do agree that many of the practices in education do need to be reformed. However, this does not require destroying the unions or demonizing teachers.

Third, the charge that unions create  a conflict of interest is worth considering. However, a conflict of interest would seem to exist for any group that donates to a political campaign. For example, the Koch Brothers helped bankroll Scot Walker and in return received various favors. Also, corporations donate vastly more money than unions. As such, if this money flow is a threat, then corporations are the far greater threat. The flow of campaign cash that buys influence is a serious problem, whether that cash flows in relatively small amounts from the unions or in oceans of cash from the corporations. A reasonable case can be made, I think, that the almost unrestricted power of money is creating significant harms in the American political system. Naturally, the corporations want to exterminate their competition (the unions) even though they already outmatch them with their contributions.

Fourth, while people (including state employees) like to joke about the laziness and incompetence of state workers, the reality is that they are no worse than any other workers. Just as in the private sector, there are good and bad workers. There seems to be no reason to believe that public employees are grossly incompetent across the board and should thus be replaced by the allegedly far more virtuous private sector workers.

Fifth, while there are no doubt public positions that are unnecessary, most jobs do seem to actually be important and useful. In any case, the “bloat” of public employees is probably comparable to the bloat that occurs in any organization. Naturally, useless positions should be trimmed but it should not simply be assumed that most positions are useless.

In light of the above arguments, it would seem that public employees and the unions are not a threat to social stability.

However, those attacking them seem to present such a threat. While the power of unions has decline severely over the years, they do still present one of the few sources of organized resistance available to public employees. Naturally, those who wish to be rid of the unions claim that they are not needed to protect public employees. After all, no one wants to do anything bad to them…and if they did, the public employees would surely deserve it.

However, this is clearly not the case. After all, the “Tea Party” governors have engaged in a full scale attack against public employees (especially educators) and seem intent on cutting wages, benefits, job security, jobs and so on. In short, there is a clear and present danger against public employees.

While public employees have been cast as greedy and useless parasites, it is important to remember that these are the people who perform such “useless” tasks as putting out fires, protecting citizens from crime, teaching the children, and so on. In short, they are an essential part of society. They are also fellow citizens, friends, and neighbors. That is, they are part of the community.

Destroying the unions and savaging public employees will not solve the economic woes created by the corporations. It will not fully offset the lost revenues from giving corporations tax breaks. Rather, doing these things will mainly damage key aspects of society and create instability.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Corporations & Unions

by 18 Comments

Socialists in Union Square, N.Y.C. [large crow...
Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

To grossly oversimplify things, the conservative view is that corporations are good and unions are bad. To use one example, the governor of Wisconsin is busy lowering taxes for corporations while trying to reduce or eliminate the collective bargaining rights of state employees.

In some ways the dislike of unions is historical in origin. Unions were often associated (in reality or in the minds of the corporate types) with Communists and anarchists. Unions are, obviously enough, almost always considered left wing in nature. After all, they tend to support the workers rather than the businesses.  This, of course, gives folks who are for corporate profits a good reason to oppose unions-unions often push companies to pay more, to provide more benefits and to not employ child or slave labor.

Interestingly enough, corporations and unions can actually be seen as being essentially the same. First, both are organizations that aim at benefiting their members. Corporations aim to maximize profits while unions aim to maximize the benefits for their members. They both organize to do this, although corporations rely primarily on financial power and unions rely more on weight of numbers. Second, both are often harshly criticized for trying to do what they are supposed to do-at least when they go too far. Corporations are typically attacked for trying to maximize profits via means that are regarded as wrong-such as exploiting workers, cutting corners in safety and so on. Unions are most often criticized for trying to get as much as they can from corporations and this is seen as harming the corporation in particular and the economy in general.

In terms of the classic stereotype, corporations are supposed to dream of having slave laborers toiling around the clock in horrible conditions while toxic waste is spewed into the very mouths of spotted owls. Unions, of course, are supposed to crave a world in which corporations funnel all their money to the workers, who show up only to collect their pay and to pilfer office supplies.

While these stereotypes do not generally match reality, there are legitimate grounds to be critical of corporations and unions. Both have done and will do bad things that harm the general good. However, both also provide goods that are worth having. Corporations provide a means by which people can organize in order to make money. Unions provide a means by which people organize to prevent themselves from being exploited and mistreated by those who wish to make money. Ideally, the two would serve t0 balance each other-the corporations would work to keep the unions from becoming too excessive while unions do the same for corporations.

While it is easy (and often fun) to blast corporations or unions, it is well worth considering the value of each and the need to have both. At least for the time being.

Enhanced by Zemanta
%d bloggers like this: