how can we rid society of unions?

[Hacp]

Again, trade unions actually serve a third purpose - training and regulation. I agree though that no one should be forced to join a union, that no workplace should be unionized without a secret ballot election monitored by a third party, that illegal practices and threats should be strongly policed, and that an employer has a perfect right to fire all his union workers and hire non-union replacements if he so desires. All I am saying is that those things do not make all unions useless or evil and do not warrant removing the right to assemble, organize, and collectively bargain if people so wish.

I would support banning strikes, if not outright unions, for government employees. Government typically has no competition and thus the market has no impact to offset the unions' power.

Wait, so you're saying that if I'm more qualified and willing to work for cheaper, the company can't take advantage of that and fire the less qualified and more expensive worker and hire me?

 

[Red Dawn]

Wait, so you're saying that if I'm more qualified and willing to work for cheaper, the company can't take advantage of that and fire the less qualified and more expensive worker and hire me?

Since when has Wendy's been a Union Shop?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Since when has Wendy's been a Union Shop?

using the same bad joke twice in a thread is a no no.

 

[werepossum]

Wait, so you're saying that if I'm more qualified and willing to work for cheaper, the company can't take advantage of that and fire the less qualified and more expensive worker and hire me?

No, I am not saying that. I have no problem with a company firing a more expensive and less qualified employee to hire a cheaper and more qualified employee. I also have no problem with the employees banding together for protection and saying "Fire one of us without a just cause and we'll all walk." And I have no problem with the company then saying "Fine, sod off and we'll replace the lot of you whiny bitches."

I do have a problem with government stepping in and prohibiting one of these actions.

 

[Rainsford]

OSHA took care of the first problem and a combination of min. wage laws and market demand take care of the second. As far as benefits, again it goes to supply and demand but with the .gov providing more and more of our benefits as "rights" I really don't see how unions are required for this either.

Unions did a great service to the working class of this country during their hayday, that time is over. They are no longer necessary and at least in the public sector cause more harm than good. There are some decent unions in the private sector but a lot of bad ones as well and the strong arm tactics they use should be outright illegal.

Of course to the vast majority of people responding to these threads none of that matters. I guarantee that should the unions do a complete 180 on who they support politically that we would see a complete reversal of who supports the unions as well (not aimed at the poster I am responding to, just in general).

What I find ironic is the argument about the "workers right to chose to form/be in a union" but new workers not having the right to chose to NOT be in a union when they never even had the ability to vote one way or the other. Shouldn't that "right" go both ways?

You admit that the conditions for the working class improved because of unions, but you're making the assumption that conditions would continue to be good in their absence. I'm not so sure that improving working conditions for working class employees is a one way transformation, that once unions made things better, their job is done and they are no longer needed. Because the people who would like working conditions to be otherwise have NOT disappeared, and while the government has done a great job making sure workers are protected, continued support for that policy comes in no small part because of the political power of unions. I think it's naive to assume that workers will be just fine if they lose their power while corporations maintain theirs.

Edit: And your political jab is silly. Unless you can read minds, I suspect your evidence comes mostly in form of what you WANT to be true. And secondly, unions are issue driven just like their supporters. The fact that both support the same political party is a function of which party supports their issues...

 

[sao123]

it's quite clear that labor unions are antiquated and unnecessary in today's world.
they breed laziness and complacency. they remove all incentive to work harder when everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of the quality of the employee and the work put in.
they often carry with them unsustainable benefits such as free (or heavily subsidized) health care for life and huge pensions.

i normally wouldn't care about any of this, but when it affects me directly i start caring.

public transit and tolls are always increasing because we have unions such as the TWU threatening to strike every time their demands for raises aren't met. the workers are lazy, incompetent lowlifes that just sit around to collect a paycheck. so fares go up a quarter every other year just to pay for their undeserved wage increases.

teachers won't take a pay freeze or contribute to their health benefits.
meanwhile, i'm bombarded with radio/tv ads funded by teachers unions telling me to call the governor to say no to the budget cuts. how about you fuckers that only focus on securing tenure take a pay freeze instead. states are going bankrupt.
i think i'm to call in and tell the gov he's got my support instead. my taxes are not going to go up to pay for your cushy retirement.

why won't the decision makers just grow a pair and a brain, sever all ties with unions and hire only non-union workers?
didn't they see what happened with the UAW and GM? don't you see what's happening in greece right now?

dont you see what is happening in the US now? the business to business to business circle jerking is whats f*cking up this country.

the welfare of the general population is what makes the economy successful. Someone in the political arena has to finally figure out that the economy is as much bottom up as it is top down.
when workers are in demand, and wages are inching higher, profits might be lower, but that is when the economy is at its best.

 

[TraumaRN]

I'll throw my two cents into this argument. I'm in the nurses union, not necessarily by choice, because I didn't have a choice, it was pay the dues or no job for you. But I look at it as a necessary evil. Most nurses bust their ass day in and day out and to be honest hospitals will take a giant dump on them.
I like having the job security and other union reps aren't the stereotypical union types. I like all 3 of my bosses/managers for the most part and I do like the higher pay scale compared to other hospitals in the area(pay max at my current hospital is $39.85, at my old hospital it was $35.50)

I don't like how expensive some of our benefits are. $16 a month for a really average vision plan and both me and the wife have poor vision. Cost us nearly $500 out of pocket for two eye exams(60 of that just for the 2 eye exams?!), new glasses for me and 2 x 6 month prescription for contacts. Old job had way better vision and way cheaper.

The dental is fine. The health care side...well it's nice that we get 4 options, 2 of which are affordable if you have wife/kids. But even for the middle of the road health insurance it's fairly expensive almost $150 month with fairly limited amount of choice on doctors. The other affordable one is just major medical. The out of reach ones would cost $300+ a month(insane!) and $750+ a month(more than my fuckin mortgage) both are Cadillac plans, and the $750 one is more like a Bentley plan. You pay nothing out of pocket basically. Again on a nurses wage just not even possible.

But like I said, I've very neutral on unions, it's nice to have a more defined job, and better nurse to patient ratios but beyond that, they don't control too much it seems. But I am thankful for what they have given me.

On the other hand, I can't stand the teacher's union whatsoever. Talk about totally blind/deaf/dumb to the situations most states face. Ridiculous their demands and the fact that in some states you can practically commit a felony and still have a damn job. Insane.

My 2 cents.

 

[TraumaRN]

I'll throw my two cents into this argument. I'm in the nurses union, not necessarily by choice, because I didn't have a choice, it was pay the dues or no job for you. But I look at it as a necessary evil. Most nurses bust their ass day in and day out and to be honest hospitals will take a giant dump on them.
I like having the job security and other union reps aren't the stereotypical union types. I like all 3 of my bosses/managers for the most part and I do like the higher pay scale compared to other hospitals in the area(pay max at my current hospital is $39.85, at my old hospital it was $35.50)

I don't like how expensive some of our benefits are. $16 a month for a really average vision plan and both me and the wife have poor vision. Cost us nearly $500 out of pocket for two eye exams(60 of that just for the 2 eye exams?!), new glasses for me and 2 x 6 month prescription for contacts. Old job had way better vision and way cheaper.

The dental is fine. The health care side...well it's nice that we get 4 options, 2 of which are affordable if you have wife/kids. But even for the middle of the road health insurance it's fairly expensive almost $150 month with fairly limited amount of choice on doctors. The other affordable one is just major medical. The out of reach ones would cost $300+ a month(insane!) and $750+ a month(more than my fuckin mortgage) both are Cadillac plans, and the $750 one is more like a Bentley plan. You pay nothing out of pocket basically. Again on a nurses wage just not even possible.

But like I said, I've very neutral on unions, it's nice to have a more defined job, and better nurse to patient ratios but beyond that, they don't control too much it seems. But I am thankful for what they have given me.

On the other hand, I can't stand the teacher's union whatsoever. Talk about totally blind/deaf/dumb to the situations most states face. Ridiculous their demands and the fact that in some states you can practically commit a felony and still have a damn job. Insane.

My 2 cents.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'll throw my two cents into this argument. I'm in the nurses union, not necessarily by choice, because I didn't have a choice, it was pay the dues or no job for you. But I look at it as a necessary evil. Most nurses bust their ass day in and day out and to be honest hospitals will take a giant dump on them.
I like having the job security and other union reps aren't the stereotypical union types. I like all 3 of my bosses/managers for the most part and I do like the higher pay scale compared to other hospitals in the area(pay max at my current hospital is $39.85, at my old hospital it was $35.50)

I don't like how expensive some of our benefits are. $16 a month for a really average vision plan and both me and the wife have poor vision. Cost us nearly $500 out of pocket for two eye exams(60 of that just for the 2 eye exams?!), new glasses for me and 2 x 6 month prescription for contacts. Old job had way better vision and way cheaper.

The dental is fine. The health care side...well it's nice that we get 4 options, 2 of which are affordable if you have wife/kids. But even for the middle of the road health insurance it's fairly expensive almost $150 month with fairly limited amount of choice on doctors. The other affordable one is just major medical. The out of reach ones would cost $300+ a month(insane!) and $750+ a month(more than my fuckin mortgage) both are Cadillac plans, and the $750 one is more like a Bentley plan. You pay nothing out of pocket basically. Again on a nurses wage just not even possible.

But like I said, I've very neutral on unions, it's nice to have a more defined job, and better nurse to patient ratios but beyond that, they don't control too much it seems. But I am thankful for what they have given me.

On the other hand, I can't stand the teacher's union whatsoever. Talk about totally blind/deaf/dumb to the situations most states face. Ridiculous their demands and the fact that in some states you can practically commit a felony and still have a damn job. Insane.

My 2 cents.

That is strange. My health care cost me peanuts, I rarely pay anything for medications, excellent vacation and sick time. Non-Union

Hmmmm

 

[Linflas]

What I find fascinating is this thread assumes unions are all about the small guy dealing with evil corporate America when in fact unions only represent around 7% of private sector workers. The largest number of union workers are public sector (government) employees, currently around 37% of them, and the public sector is the one place unions are growing.

 

[werepossum]

What I find fascinating is this thread assumes unions are all about the small guy dealing with evil corporate America when in fact unions only represent around 7% of private sector workers. The largest number of union workers are public sector (government) employees, currently around 37% of them, and the public sector is the one place unions are growing.

And the public sector is by far the most dangerous place for unions, as government typically has no competition to restrain union demands.

You admit that the conditions for the working class improved because of unions, but you're making the assumption that conditions would continue to be good in their absence. I'm not so sure that improving working conditions for working class employees is a one way transformation, that once unions made things better, their job is done and they are no longer needed. Because the people who would like working conditions to be otherwise have NOT disappeared, and while the government has done a great job making sure workers are protected, continued support for that policy comes in no small part because of the political power of unions. I think it's naive to assume that workers will be just fine if they lose their power while corporations maintain theirs.
SNIP

Absent other forces such as government or government empowerment of unions, the main thing protecting workers' conditions is relative demand. As long as we have massive immigration far outpacing economic growth, workers' conditions would naturally decline (think Europe in late 17th and 18th century, or the USA during the Great Depression) because there are more potential employees than jobs. The decline in workers' conditions would tend to produce a more wealthy society, though not necessarily a better one, as most Americans at least (admittedly excluding the hardcore progressives) prefer a society with a large and vibrant middle class to one with a very small upper class and a very large worker class. Strong unions tend to move a society toward the latter model, but since the natural tendency is for wealth to concentrate in fewer hands this is probably not a bad force in a healthy society.

 

[nonlnear]

And the public sector is by far the most dangerous place for unions, as government typically has no competition to restrain union demands.

Not to mention the employees of a given agency then position themselves as having a special prerogative to lobby the government to make laws which enlarge the budgets and mandates of the agencies they work for on the pretext of having special insight into the needs of the agency. It's quite the racket.

 

[werepossum]

Not to mention the employees of a given agency then position themselves as having a special prerogative to lobby the government to make laws which enlarge the budgets and mandates of the agencies they work for on the pretext of having special insight into the needs of the agency. It's quite the racket.

This probably the most dangerous thing about unions, even worse than their affect on productivity and education. There's not much desirable (to society) in unions for public sector employees in my opinion.

 

[Carmen813]

Wait, so you're saying that if I'm more qualified and willing to work for cheaper, the company can't take advantage of that and fire the less qualified and more expensive worker and hire me?

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what he just said.

I agree, to an extent, with what Werepossum is saying about government union's. I think unions serve a purpose, though like any organization if they accumulate too much power they do more harm than good.

 

[TraumaRN]

That is strange. My health care cost me peanuts, I rarely pay anything for medications, excellent vacation and sick time. Non-Union

Hmmmm

Oh don't get me wrong I have excellent sick/vacation time. I requested and was granted 6 weeks of vacation time for throughout the year and was granted all of it. And I still have like 2-3 weeks of sick time depending if I work OT or not. Once I hit 8 year mark in seniority, I'll be gaining 32 hours of vacation a month, or roughly 10 weeks of vacation per calender year. Thank goodness they do a vacation time buyback because I couldn't use that vacation time fast enough at that point

 

[Zargon]

You admit that the conditions for the working class improved because of unions, but you're making the assumption that conditions would continue to be good in their absence. I'm not so sure that improving working conditions for working class employees is a one way transformation, that once unions made things better, their job is done and they are no longer needed. Because the people who would like working conditions to be otherwise have NOT disappeared, and while the government has done a great job making sure workers are protected, continued support for that policy comes in no small part because of the political power of unions. I think it's naive to assume that workers will be just fine if they lose their power while corporations maintain theirs.

there is gov't oversight for job conditions and OSHA laws ETC.

Thats all MOST PLACES need.

 

[zephyrprime]

why won't the decision makers just grow a pair and a brain, sever all ties with unions and hire only non-union workers?
didn't they see what happened with the UAW and GM? don't you see what's happening in greece right now?

It's just a matter of economic benefit and government politics. It's no surprise that union strong holds are strongest in the government sector. The only way for unions to be eliminated would be for the laws allowing them to exist to be repealed.

 

[CitizenKain]

there is gov't oversight for job conditions and OSHA laws ETC.

Thats all MOST PLACES need.

You seem to think corporate lobbyists wouldn't get those removed if Unions went away?

 

[Zargon]

You seem to think corporate lobbyists wouldn't get those removed if Unions went away?

didnt say those lobbist should be allowed to exist still either now did I

 

[werepossum]

there is gov't oversight for job conditions and OSHA laws ETC.

Thats all MOST PLACES need.

True. But the natural tendency is for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. This is especially true for a labor-rich environment such as the USA has due to unfettered inflation. So you can make a strong argument that as long as their is a reasonably strong market influence tamping down their power, unions (of any sort) help offset this tendency and therefore help preserve and grow the middle class at a relatively small cost in productivity. Arguably this is a desirable thing.

 

[SirStev0]

There are unions and then there are unions. I was very anti-union before I started doing AEC engineering, but I have since recognized great value in trade unions, especially when working outside my city. A union journeyman electrician has seven years of specialized education, including classroom work and supervised on-the-job apprenticeship; a non-union journeyman electrician has five years which may be only on-the-job training with limited supervision and instruction. A union shop has a specified allowable number of apprentices and helpers per journeyman and journeymen per master; a non-union shop has no limits and may well staff a job with one licensed journeyman and two dozen unlicensed "apprentices" (who in some areas are not infrequently illegal aliens speaking little English and reading none.) We do have one very good non-union shop in the area, but generally I would prefer only union shops. You just get better work. In fact, if I had my way all my out-of-town jobs would be union only, as you are virtually guaranteed a minimum level of competence well above that of many (probably most) non-union shops and contractors.

In my opinion you can't really compare an unskilled union, which exists mostly to protect poor employees and to extort larger raises through collective bargaining and strikes, with a skilled union which also provides value. Then there are inherently dangerous jobs such as mining, where a union may well mean the difference between life and death. So I don't think you can say that unions are always bad.

signed. This guy actually knows what he is talking about.

If you really don't think we need unions read up about West Virginia and the mine disaster a few months ago (you know the one everyone forgot about when the gulf exploded).
Don Blankenship, a newage Coal Robber Baron spent years going out of his way to stomp worker's unions all while putting in judges and state reps to keep it all quiet. Then he started changing policies making the mines less safe. No surprise that one finally went crashing down and lives were lost. Safe Bet nothing will happen to Don Blankenship. Except maybe for some more profits.

 

[Naeeldar]

True. But the natural tendency is for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. This is especially true for a labor-rich environment such as the USA has due to unfettered inflation. So you can make a strong argument that as long as their is a reasonably strong market influence tamping down their power, unions (of any sort) help offset this tendency and therefore help preserve and grow the middle class at a relatively small cost in productivity. Arguably this is a desirable thing.

How can you possibly say unions grow the middle class? The fact of the matter is unions cover a very small % of the workforce. There are a lot of middle class people out there who are not a part of unions.

It's a given fact that unions has bent companies to their will giving workers a wage that is far outside their value. Not the least of which unions make it near impossible to fire an employee who deserves it.

Given that that happens and that it's a fact people do just fine without unions. What is the point of them anymore? I don't see hwo you can make the argument that the small % of people under unions somehow make it so that all people get equality?

The world is different these days. People would leave extremly quick from a company who forced workers into unsafe/unfair working conditions.

 

[Red Dawn]

How can you possibly say unions grow the middle class? The fact of the matter is unions cover a very small % of the workforce. There are a lot of middle class people out there who are not a part of unions.

It's a given fact that unions has bent companies to their will giving workers a wage that is far outside their value. Not the least of which unions make it near impossible to fire an employee who deserves it.

Given that that happens and that it's a fact people do just fine without unions. What is the point of them anymore? I don't see hwo you can make the argument that the small % of people under unions somehow make it so that all people get equality?

The world is different these days. People would leave extremly quick from a company who forced workers into unsafe/unfair working conditions.

yeah take those WV Mining companies for example..oh wait, bad example

 

[Naeeldar]

yeah take those WV Mining companies for example..oh wait, bad example

You do realize that a lot of employees for Massey at the mine that had the accident have defended the company and CEO?

Here's the simplest truth in the world... if you don't like your job LEAVE. What is so hard to understand about that?

And FYI the issues at the mining company would not have been solved with a union. The issue is related to a recent change in govt regulations. Regardless that will be changed now and why? Because of how quickly information gets around these days.

Most of the US is without unions and operates just fine. Without people getting a salary jump for no reason. Septa in Philadelphia is a perfect example this past year. There was a strike because they didin't get the raises etc. It's a joke. The bus drivers make more then many Americans for doing something just about anybody with a half a brain can do. Unions allow people to get a higher wage then the value of the job.

 

[SirStev0]

You do realize that a lot of employees for Massey at the mine that had the accident have defended the company and CEO?

Here's the simplest truth in the world... if you don't like your job LEAVE. What is so hard to understand about that?

And FYI the issues at the mining company would not have been solved with a union. The issue is related to a recent change in govt regulations. Regardless that will be changed now and why? Because of how quickly information gets around these days.

Most of the US is without unions and operates just fine. Without people getting a salary jump for no reason. Septa in Philadelphia is a perfect example this past year. There was a strike because they didin't get the raises etc. It's a joke. The bus drivers make more then many Americans for doing something just about anybody with a half a brain can do. Unions allow people to get a higher wage then the value of the job.

Um. As someone who lives in West Virginia less than an hour from the mine disaster, I can assure you the only people defending Blankenship and his robber barren fuck the worker ways are the people too scared to lose their jobs.
The man physically owns judges. WV supreme court judges. While being investigated by the state and being sued he actual took one of the supreme court judges (again, while the case was still open) on vacation in Monaco.
His charities are the worst kind of "swiftboat vets for freedom" that act solely to publicly lobby and promote his candidates while character attacking and destroying the competition.

Everyone was waiting for a mine disaster to happen. The newspapers were constantly putting out articles about company policies changing to remove safety features and political attempts to crush the unions. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time.

Lucky for old Don, BP decided to one up him on the old fuck the world scale.

EDIT: BTW, I am guessing you are getting your info praising good old Don Blankenship, from one of the teabag rallies. In case you didn't know, he is a huge contributor to them. It is one of those easy ways to try to falsely bloat his reputation.