how do you feel about unions?

[gorcorps]

I'm going to be frank up front here... I don't care for unions. I understand the point of them when they started as working conditions were awful (especially in industrial settings, which is where my experience with unions is). It was unsafe, the wages were piss poor, and the monopolies in place made it so they couldn't easily up and find a new job if they wanted to. The unions gave teeth to the working class in order to fight back a bit during the days of monopoly.

Now however, we have OSHA, better wages and anti-trust laws that prevent the same monopolies from forming again. What I'm seeing now is a group of people that uses the union so they can be lazy at work but not get fired. People can actively sleep at work, get caught red handed and "fired", but the union will fight for them back and they'll be back to sleeping in no time. Apart from actively assaulting somebody or coming in completely PLASTERED, there's no way to discipline anybody.

So, do you think unions are dragging us down in the industrial areas? That would include automotive, steel, etc... I've heard stories of GM throwing away gobs of money on people who literally show up and sit in a room doing nothing, because they've proven to be more of a detriment when they're "working" yet they're not allowed to fire them. For the record I don't consider the teachers union to be in the same group, but it should be discussed as well.

 

[DrPizza]

I believe that your image of unions is more or less anecdotal. You've "heard stories" - but first of all, those stories represent a fraction of a percent of union workers. Further, they're that - stories.

There are often repeated stories - teacher's union workers in a "rubber room" in NYC - still paid, but not in the classroom. There's a reason - due process. I think it's more familiar to people with stories of police officers. Quite often, an officer is put on desk duty, or suspended with pay during an investigation. For legal reasons, they can't be kept "out on the streets" where if they make an arrest, as a consequence of whatever resulted in desk duty/suspension, a guilty person is going to get freed on a technicality. But, more often than not, those officers are cleared of wrong-doing and returned to their jobs. Would you really punish a family - late on mortgage payments, etc., because someone wrongfully accused someone of something that would remove them from their jobs? If a teacher is accused by a student of fondling her, that teacher's going to be removed from the classroom during the investigation. Why? Because if it's true, and that teacher lays a finger on any other student, the school is going to be sued into the ground. And, very often, it turns out not to be true. Do you know how much power it would give students/give criminals if all they had to do was accuse a teacher or officer of wrong doing and that officer was immediately fired? Thus, you get stories of union workers sitting around.

Now, I can't speak generally of all unions. Perhaps some are a bit too powerful. But, I can speak of teacher's unions. Is it merely a coincidence that the states without teacher's unions also rank at the bottom educationally?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm going to be frank up front here... I don't care for unions. I understand the point of them when they started as working conditions were awful (especially in industrial settings, which is where my experience with unions is). It was unsafe, the wages were piss poor, and the monopolies in place made it so they couldn't easily up and find a new job if they wanted to. The unions gave teeth to the working class in order to fight back a bit during the days of monopoly.

Now however, we have OSHA, better wages and anti-trust laws that prevent the same monopolies from forming again. What I'm seeing now is a group of people that uses the union so they can be lazy at work but not get fired. People can actively sleep at work, get caught red handed and "fired", but the union will fight for them back and they'll be back to sleeping in no time. Apart from actively assaulting somebody or coming in completely PLASTERED, there's no way to discipline anybody.

So, do you think unions are dragging us down in the industrial areas? That would include automotive, steel, etc... I've heard stories of GM throwing away gobs of money on people who literally show up and sit in a room doing nothing, because they've proven to be more of a detriment when they're "working" yet they're not allowed to fire them. For the record I don't consider the teachers union to be in the same group, but it should be discussed as well.

The economics literature that I have seen does not show any net decrease in productivity for union vs. nonunion shops, which means that on average what you're saying is most likely inaccurate or made up for with productivity gains elsewhere.

What unions ARE associated with is a higher percentage of profits, etc captured by workers, but considering the massive upswing in income inequality over the last 40 years that seems like a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[gorcorps]

I believe that your image of unions is more or less anecdotal. You've "heard stories" - but first of all, those stories represent a fraction of a percent of union workers. Further, they're that - stories.

While I can't speak for automotive or education other than hearsay , I know the steel side first hand which is what sparked the thread.

The problem with comparisons is that there's so many variables that can go into productivity/profit so it's hard to judge the merit of union vs. non-union. Unless a plant had union labor and then switched to non-union there's never going to be enough controlled variables to say what's making the difference. So no, I can't really say with 100% confidence that one way is better than the other. There's definitely issues with salaried AND union folk, but where the salaried folk can be talked to by a manager and they'll (mostly) straighten up, some union guys know they don't HAVE to straighten up and take advantage of the system. I'm not sure how this affects long term productivity or profits, but on a day-to-day level it seems highly inefficient.

 

[fskimospy]

While I can't speak for automotive or education other than hearsay , I know the steel side first hand which is what sparked the thread.

The problem with comparisons is that there's so many variables that can go into productivity/profit so it's hard to judge the merit of union vs. non-union. Unless a plant had union labor and then switched to non-union there's never going to be enough controlled variables to say what's making the difference. So no, I can't really say with 100% confidence that one way is better than the other. There's definitely issues with salaried AND union folk, but where the salaried folk can be talked to by a manager and they'll (mostly) straighten up, some union guys know they don't HAVE to straighten up and take advantage of the system. I'm not sure how this affects long term productivity or profits, but on a day-to-day level it seems highly inefficient.

While you're right that there are no perfect experiments, it is possible to compare productivity across union and nonunion shops in the same industry, which is what economists have generally done. Like I said, the evidence doesn't show a decrease in productivity. There are in fact quite a few studies that show increases in productivity from unionization.

If you found that unions were not associated with a decline in productivity would you change your mind and support them, given that they generally help mitigate income inequality? What sort of evidence would you need to change your mind on this?

 

[Murloc]

I don't know about the american perspective but here unions mainly do their job, although too many union dirigents etc. just get money and do nothing all day and I don't like how some unions pressure workers into joining.

In Italy they promote doing nothing and taking, enjoy privileges and too much political power. Example: almost every month, in Italy, public transport stops. To protest against nothing specific. Like some time ago they just organized protests "against austerity" and other bogus stuff that has nothing to do with Italy or the well-being of their workers. Other times they just behave like animals when they should be conducting negotiations because they don't agree on a contract that all other unions agree on. You know, a minor union can block everything in the public service. All the workers who have to go to work everyday have their life made difficult by these guys. They mainly hurt the proletarians they should protect with these strikes.
This is a bad thing that happens in France too, they just have an "against" culture in which the protest itself is the point. Vastly different from how it is here, strikes are rare.

Anyway this is a matter of how, not if. I think they do a task someone has to do. They don't have the importance they did in the '800 but still have their place.
Here in some sectors union conduct negotiations with the state and the association representing enterprises to do collective contracts in each sector that state the minimum wage for those jobs and stuff like that. This way there isn't a need to set general minimum wages and stuff. Where there needs to be intervention, it happens, by state or union initiative. In this kind of negotiations unions make plenty of sense. Also to represent the workers in big enterprises. They also conduct on-field activities to find foreign subcontractors using illegal/underpaid workers, and denounce unethical situations.

 

[gorcorps]

While you're right that there are no perfect experiments, it is possible to compare productivity across union and nonunion shops in the same industry, which is what economists have generally done. Like I said, the evidence doesn't show a decrease in productivity. There are in fact quite a few studies that show increases in productivity from unionization.

If you found that unions were not associated with a decline in productivity would you change your mind and support them, given that they generally help mitigate income inequality? What sort of evidence would you need to change your mind on this?

It's entirely possible in the long run they benefit the entire company, but again those statistics have flaws. For example each mill doesn't make the same steel for the same application, so comparing just union to non-union mills in the industry is going to be flawed. The non-union mills further south are many times in a different market than the ones in the "rust belt" around Lake Michigan.

That's just for steel though, and I'm sure there's data for other industries without so many variables. I would have to see some pretty definitive data to believe that at the exact same mill, union labor is more productive than non-union labor. Obviously the bottom line is more important than a few bad apples, but the bad apples are what stand out. They stand out so much that it makes me think if those bad apples were able to be fixed the company as a whole would be better. I mean... if you remove the negative outliers your average will increase, right?

Here's another way to consider it, assuming unions increase productivity overall. The unions do a good job at increasing wages at the bottom level. Like you said, it helps limit income inequality overall. Do you think it's mostly the above average wage that they earn that helps that productivity? If so, could a non-union shop get the same productivity out of their workforce if they paid their employees the same? You could think of it in two ways:

• The employees make the same take home money, but the company pays less overall due to not having to fund union fees. The employees are just as "motivated" to do a good job, and the company spends less.
• The employees get more take home money and are possibly more "motivated" overall because they aren't paying union dues. The company is paying the same money the unionized one does, and the employees are getting even more incentive to perform.

I can understand why unions may be more productive overall, but what I don't understand is why a company couldn't get that same productivity without the union? Imagine if a company could pay exactly what they're paying for labor now, and their employees could be making even MORE money because of it, only now the company has the ability to pluck the bad apples. In my mind this can only help.

 

[DrPizza]

some union guys know they don't HAVE to straighten up and take advantage of the system.

Again, you're making statements based on hearsay. I belonged to a union at a tile manufacturing company when I was doing an engineering internship (since officially I was a lab tech); and I've belonged to a teacher's union for a large number of years, and I'm quite familiar with the union my son was a member of. In all three cases, there are zero workers "taking advantage of the system" and not working. In the first and last of those examples, guys were working their asses off day after day. On the latter, quite often, guys were working 16 hour days, day after day after severe storm - and they went to their hotel rooms each night, exhausted. If you stood around and didn't work, that union didn't want you, period, because it made them look bad & they wouldn't be getting those contracts.

 

[DrPizza]

I can understand why unions may be more productive overall, but what I don't understand is why a company couldn't get that same productivity without the union? Imagine if a company could pay exactly what they're paying for labor now, and their employees could be making even MORE money because of it, only now the company has the ability to pluck the bad apples. In my mind this can only help.

Unions just don't form out of a vacuum. They often form when workers feel they are being underpaid, or made to work in poor conditions. There ARE car manufacturing plants where workers aren't union. And, their pay is pretty decent. If the company starts cutting employees pay, makes them give up benefits, etc., and the employees see that the company is making record profits, giving huge bonuses to management, etc., I can almost guarantee you that the employees will seek to unionize.

A hospital I'm familiar with did not have a union for nurses. Nurses were being overworked & many thought they were being put into dangerous situations - too many patients to cover. (There is plenty of research into patient loads; they felt that too often, they were going well beyond was was considered by research to be a safe load for the level of care that they were giving. They didn't unionize over salaries - they unionized for better working conditions.

Again, unions don't tend to spontaneously form - there needs to be some sort of motivational requirement to get employees to WANT to form a union. Otherwise, the thought is, "working conditions are pretty good; my pay is reasonable. Why would I want to pay a percentage of my pay in dues?"

 

[gorcorps]

I think it's pretty obvious we've had different experiences and are applying them across the board. I believe you that you've seen or been a part of healthy productive unions. I agree they have their place in many cases, and the greed of corporations needs to be kept in check. However I don't agree that every single union employee fits this perfect model, and I know for a fact that many of them take advantage of the system.

I also don't appreciate brushing off my comments as mere hearsay when you don't yet know that's the case. When I said some of the guys know they don't have to straighten up, I mean it. Let me tell you a story.

When I interned at a different, but similar union place I ran into a number of people who were sleeping before I stumbled in. This was a guy I had talked to before and he was pretty cool. He turned and said, "you scared me man, thought you were the boss for a second." I chuckled and said "good that I wasn't right?"

He says, "nah man, if the boss yells at us we can just grieve it and we never really hear about it again." I asked, "you can be doing whatever you want, and if the manager yells at you for not doing something you get off scott free?"

"Well he has to be like... yelling at us. You know, being agressive. You're not allowed to intimidate your workforce." Makes sense to me I thought and said, "Okay, so if your boss is really yelling and threatening you then that makes sense. I'd complain too."

"yeah" he says with a smile, "but do you think they ever believe that a manager ISN'T yelling if he catches somebody sleeping?"

I hadn't heard about this before so I asked a manager about this whole thing. He told me that complaints from the union against management are an every day thing, and it's gotten so to the point that they grieve "management agression" any time they're asked to do something. Apparently the grievance list is so long that it takes months to get through, so by the time the proper process was followed nobody knows what really happened and it just gets dropped. Even if a manager can prove he didn't raise his voice, it's already forgotten.

That guy knew exactly how the system worked and exactly how to take advantage of it. He wasn't going to change his ways because he told me right to my face that he didn't have to.

I agree that unions aren't inherently bad. I also agree that they form for a reason. However, the current steel workers unions were formed in the early days of steel (Carnegie steel, early US Steel and Republic Steel). Back then working conditions were terrible, pay was nothing, and safety was a huge concern. Now we have huge safety programs and OSHA, much higher wages in the industry even without unions and THAT came from the competition of other companies allowed by new anti-trust laws that weren't in affect beforehand. The industry now is not the same as it was then, and there's some folks that are taking advantage.

Maybe I've seen the worst of it, and maybe certain steel workers contain the worst examples of a healthy union. If that's the case then we'll never be able to agree because I haven't seen what you've seen, and you haven't seen what I've seen.

 

[DrPizza]

I dismissed them as hearsay because in your OP, you prefaced it with "I've heard stories...," rather than relating to something you actually witnessed. This makes me skeptical of what you did witness, since you seemed to feel it less important than stories (otherwise, why not include that, rather than stories, in the OP), but I'll accept it at face value. Nonetheless, what you've observed and I've observed are anecdotal examples. As stated above, is there a difference in productivity between union and non-union shops?

 

[DrPizza]

The main focus is on (I) conclusions as to whether unions raise or lower productivity and (2) procedures used to identify the channels through which unions affect productivity. The studies of unions and productivity have documented large productivity differences between seemingly comparable union and nonunion establishments. In many cases unionism is associated with higher productivity, especially when unionized firms are in a competitive environment.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w2744

So, it appears that unions do not decrease productivity; in fact, productivity is higher. But, this doesn't mean every union everywhere, leaving room for both what you witnessed, as well as other anecdotal stories. The thing is though, those stories are what most seem to remember, and which are pushed the most as evidence that unions are bad. There is one area where I'll agree unions generally aren't desired: owners of companies*. Because unions result in lower profits for the owner (but lead to higher wages for the employees.) If you own your own company vs. work for a company, that should sway your opinion. I believe the former has a vested interest in really spreading these stories more and trying to convince people not to join unions. And, with decreasing membership in unions, we're also seeing an increasing spread between the wealthy & the middle class. Coincidence?

*edit: in some instances, such as the electrical union in NY, union labor is generally known for doing a much better job than non-union labor. Hence a lot of places will prefer to hire union workers.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm anti union but that's based purely from my own personal experience. From my own personal experience unions get in the way of what would otherwise be a good management/employee relationship. I've also seen bad employees use them to slow down the process of getting rid of them. And I've witnessed first hand bullying by union heads.

Despite my biases I don't feel unions aren't needed I just think they should be kept in check via optional membership. No employee should be required to join a union in order to work.
I'm in CA btw.

 

[sandorski]

It's easy to find corruption in any type of Organization and/or Group. What's difficult is in applying criticisms to those Organizations/Groups fairly without getting Ideological concerns entangled with it.

For eg: We have many examples of Corps/Businesses/Employers/Owners being Corrupt/Abusive/Asshats/Lazy, yet there isn't the same criticisms against their type of Organizations/Groups as there are against Unions. Outside of a very small, almost non-existant, group anyway.

 

[waggy]

My feel is unions started off as a necesity. but over time they grew so large they and make so much money they have passed use.

I have friends that work at Cat. some on the floor some in the office. the bullshit Cat wanted in the 90's was amazing. it was really staggering what the union wanted for the workers.

My ex wife works for place that makes the seats for Chrysler. She is a member of the UAW and while she has been there less then 6 months some of the stuff she has told me about blows my mind.

She started working for at the Chrysler plant itself. The amount of Sexual harassment she was receiving in the short time seh worked there was shocking. She talked to the Union rep who blew her off. she changed jobs (to where she is now) where she was making less an hour.

When i was younger i had a part time job working at a grocery store. i had to be part of the union. I paid $5 a week to it. i asked what i got out of it. everyone i talked to said NOTHING. the union had no real power.

But on the flip side my step-dad said his union (can't remember what one) said they went to bat for him time after time and helped him get jobs.

it really depends on who is in charge.


oh i also feel the unions trying to get fast food workers to join is nothing more then a way to get more member dues.

 

[Exterous]

It's easy to find corruption in any type of Organization and/or Group. What's difficult is in applying criticisms to those Organizations/Groups fairly without getting Ideological concerns entangled with it.

For eg: We have many examples of Corps/Businesses/Employers/Owners being Corrupt/Abusive/Asshats/Lazy, yet there isn't the same criticisms against their type of Organizations/Groups as there are against Unions. Outside of a very small, almost non-existant, group anyway.

Agreed. People point to certain unions as an example about why all unions are bad. 'I saw a Pepsi employee slacking off so I'm not going to buy Coke!'

I've been hearing for years about how teacher's unions are leaches and they get too much pay and too many benefits, esp those in CA or Illinois. Still waiting for any of that to come our way...

I'll say some have too much power, some don't have enough. It's a balancing game. Anytime either side gets too much there will be negative effects. Doesn't mean you need to get rid of the side - just bring things back into balance.

 

[waggy]

I've been hearing for years about how teacher's unions are leaches and they get too much pay and too many benefits, esp those in CA or Illinois. Still waiting for any of that to come our way...

I'll say some have too much power, some don't have enough. It's a balancing game. Anytime either side gets too much there will be negative effects. Doesn't mean you need to get rid of the side - just bring things back into balance.

the Teachers union is bad in IL. Chicago is far the worst of it. But even 8 years ago when my wife was teaching it was creaping out into the country schools. Though not bad but starting. Though i have heard it hasn't got any worse.

 

[soccerballtux]

They're stupid in manufacturing unless import taxes from 2nd-3rd world countries are enacted (China) to offset our standard of living and environmental protection laws. Just shut shop and offshore production.
However, they're great for America's middle class.

 

[Sonikku]

It's dismaying how in a single generation Americans have been conditioned to believe unions serve no purpose but to hurt them and accept whatever a company doles out as all they deserve. Seeing Americans seemingly accepting their fate like lambs to the slaughter is tragic and brings a country low from it's previous heights. Even if they did puncture through all the propaganda videos Target/Walmart etc bombard new recruits with upon hiring about the "evils" of unions and banded together, those companies would sooner lay off an entire store and rehire from scratch than meet any of their employees across a discussion table and in a bad economy built on job off shoring they would find numerous eager replacements.

Ours is a retail world built on making employees feel too weak, worthless and helpless to do anything to better their situation with the company as a means of keeping them poor and obedient. I find it ironic that the same party eagerly underminding unions at every opportunity is the same one who so regularly holds Reagan up as a shining example of the parties success. If it was widely known such a man had actually advocated for unions, (and raised taxes on multiple occasions. And raised the debt ceiling, spent a ton on stimulus, exploded the deficit etc) the Tea Party would label him a Socialist by modern standards.

 

[Screech]

I tend to believe unions can have some benefit (not will but can) in private sector manufacturing as far as negotiating for workers, but in the public sector should not exist. Why? Because in the private sector, again generally speaking, the union can't make endless demands as eventually if the business goes under its game over for everyone (auto manufacturers aside.....). However, in the public sector, there isn't really a "going out of business" equivalent; the teachers union can simply demand more money to help "teach our kids", put it in pensions, rinse, repeat, and nobody has the balls to stop it for fear of not getting elected for being "against the children". The end result is you end up with bonuses and or retirement plans that the state simply cannot afford.

And yes, I'm from california.....

 

[darkxshade]

I'm against unions... especially of the marriage variety

 

[Mxylplyx]

I think unions need to adjust to modern realities in the global workplace. When globalization allows for widgets to be produced almost anywhere, it is inevitable that they have to give up ground if they want to maintain their industries. They need to focus on benefits and compensation, and not seniority rules and other ancillary stuff. They have definitely earned some of their PR problems over the years, but I think if they adjust their priorities, and do a better job of promoting themselves as protectors of the American middle class, they could turn the tide.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I tend to believe unions can have some benefit (not will but can) in private sector manufacturing as far as negotiating for workers, but in the public sector should not exist. Why? Because in the private sector, again generally speaking, the union can't make endless demands as eventually if the business goes under its game over for everyone (auto manufacturers aside.....). However, in the public sector, there isn't really a "going out of business" equivalent; the teachers union can simply demand more money to help "teach our kids", put it in pensions, rinse, repeat, and nobody has the balls to stop it for fear of not getting elected for being "against the children". The end result is you end up with bonuses and or retirement plans that the state simply cannot afford.

And yes, I'm from california.....

I agree with this. Public sector unions mixed with politicians seeking votes is a bad combination. California and Greece are 2 great examples.

 

[Whiskey16]

Sorry, a rushed post before bed with a bit of copying and pasting from a couple of past P&N posts of mine [1] [2]:

The essence comes down to... Management gets the unions they deserve.

The current Canadian federal government has been slowly attempting to legislate against the security and privacy of unions in order to weaken them. Yet due to our current constitutional and privacy laws, legislation as perverse as legislated in the USA and elsewhere is not possible here:

A federal bill that would force unions to disclose some staff salaries still goes too far, in spite of amendments meant to address criticism, the privacy commissioner says.
..
The legislation would require unions to disclose financial information to Revenue Canada – including identifying staff and directors who are paid more than $100,000 – which would then be made public. Wednesday’s amendments raised the reporting threshold to $100,000 from $5,000 in response to concerns that releasing such private information is not appropriate. But a spokesperson for Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said the changes are not enough.

“We believe these are positive amendments and a step in the right direction for privacy. However, we continue to have privacy concerns,” Valerie Lawton said.
The commissioner had previously told MPs the existing exceptional circumstances in which governments disclose salaries that are directly funded by the public do not create a precedent for labour groups because they do not pay their employees directly from public funds.

“I think this is a significant privacy intrusion, and it seems highly disproportionate,” Ms. Stoddart said of the bill as originally written.

Now a decent CBC synopsis upon the inanity in the USA:

Neil Macdonald: The right to work for less

In fact, calling Michigan's new labour law "right to work" legislation is like calling a bill that strips away hard-fought civil liberties "The Patriot Act," or denying gay Americans the right to wed by passing the "Defence of Marriage Act."

In the late-1940s, George Orwell invented the concept of newspeak to lampoon such oily official euphemisms. He could not have imagined how the skill would be perfected in America decades later.

Right-to-work laws are almost exclusively the efforts of Republican legislators in the American South and West and essentially mean the outlawing of almost any arrangement guaranteeing union security.
..
Of course, an even more attractive option for employers is the "employment-at-will" laws that certain states have enacted.

Virginia is one such state. To quote from its website: "The employer may terminate any employee at any time, for any reason, or for no reason."
Maryland, considered a more progressive jurisdiction, has rebuffed Republican attempts to join the right-to-work group, which primarily targets union activity.

But for those workers unfortunate enough not to be protected by a collective agreement or contract, Maryland expands the "at-will" concept to allow its employers to terminate for any reason, "whether fair or not."

To be clear: unfair labour practice is entrenched in Maryland law.

If workers end support for their union then who may represent them to retain their apparent comfort in wage, benefits, and working conditions? How did they attain such status in the first place?

A necessary balance is needed, yet the trend in the USA is to remove bargaining representation, protection, and rights of the worker in order to favour the employer.

The danger is of legislating ideological extremism against employees rather than practical balance between management and the worker's union.

 

[Craig234]

I'm going to be frank up front here... I don't care for unions. I understand the point of them when they started as working conditions were awful (especially in industrial settings, which is where my experience with unions is). It was unsafe, the wages were piss poor, and the monopolies in place made it so they couldn't easily up and find a new job if they wanted to. The unions gave teeth to the working class in order to fight back a bit during the days of monopoly.

Now however, we have OSHA, better wages and anti-trust laws that prevent the same monopolies from forming again. What I'm seeing now is a group of people that uses the union so they can be lazy at work but not get fired. People can actively sleep at work, get caught red handed and "fired", but the union will fight for them back and they'll be back to sleeping in no time. Apart from actively assaulting somebody or coming in completely PLASTERED, there's no way to discipline anybody.

So, do you think unions are dragging us down in the industrial areas? That would include automotive, steel, etc... I've heard stories of GM throwing away gobs of money on people who literally show up and sit in a room doing nothing, because they've proven to be more of a detriment when they're "working" yet they're not allowed to fire them. For the record I don't consider the teachers union to be in the same group, but it should be discussed as well.

There are always, permanent, ongoing differences of interests between the 'owners' and the 'workers', no matter how well things seem to be going. There's always a balance of power, and unions are an equalizing force - and while we no longer have the nightmares of the gilded age, we always have wages issues, and there are other issues. Remove unions, and you shift the power, and that will hurt workers. And that's bad, when it would be too far in favor of the owners. In these times of record concentrations of wealth, that's bad.

We're already at a point where 121% of the economic recovery - a massive amount of wealth - for the first two years after the economic crash - went to the top 1%. (That means not only did the entire recovery go to them, but that the 99% lost wealth on top of that in the same period that also went to them). And you suggest shifting more wealth.

Unions aren't perfect and the struggles on labor issues are ugly, like watching 'sausages and laws' being made, but there's a bottom line. Until you can suggest a better way to protect the interests of workers and the middle class, there's no good reason to oppose unions.

And in my experience, the attacks on unions are largely false, which you have bought into. I'd like to see some credible studies for the issue to bakc up your claims.

What I've seen suggests higher productivity for the unions.

But of course those who want to shift wealth to themselves will always have attacks against unions. I remember the recent bankruptcy of Hostess.

The version of the story for much of the public was 'unions shut down beloved bakery company by refusing to compromise'. This was quite false.

It completely ignores the actually history of Wall Street speculators with a ton of money and no experience in baking buying the company, and the management team changing constantly for years with bad policies, the large concessions the workers had already made - to the point that it was so bad for workers they were not going to keep working for even less, as I saw one worker who said he was making $15,000 a year say. The union got scapegoated for the problems with the venture capitalists.

Union membership has plummeted. 50 years ago it was far higher and the middle class was doing much better and the economy was just fine. We need to have more unions.