Unions losing enrollment

[theeedude]

I do not think that the Teacher's Union is looking out for the students nor do they require the same qualifications to be a teacher.

Teachers union is just a union of teachers.

 

[cabri]

That is BS once you get into the union leadership.

 

[cubby1223]

Here is the big question: why do unions fail so miserably at convincing people of their value?

Maybe when public sector unions strike, stop performing their jobs, they are telling everyone a gigantic "Fuck you, I'm only interested in more money" and maybe people don't like that.

Maybe parents do not appreciate when their children are used as hostages every time a teacher feels s/he wants more money.

 

[rudeguy]

Here is the big question: why do unions fail so miserably at convincing people of their value?

Maybe when public sector unions strike, stop performing their jobs, they are telling everyone a gigantic "Fuck you, I'm only interested in more money" and maybe people don't like that.

Maybe parents do not appreciate when their children are used as hostages every time a teacher feels s/he wants more money.

Or maybe people grew up in states like Michigan where the unions demanded more and more money until businesses crumbled and the whole state almost died simply because of union greed.

Unions were needed before all the government regulations. Now they exist solely to extort money.

 

[michal1980]

Wisconsin is going to go the way of Kansas with education cuts, and overall dumbing trend and there will be no one to stand up to it. Good thing I don't live in either state.

so the super strong teachers union in Chicago are producing the best kids in the country right?

 

[michal1980]

Here is the big question: why do unions fail so miserably at convincing people of their value?

Maybe when public sector unions strike, stop performing their jobs, they are telling everyone a gigantic "Fuck you, I'm only interested in more money" and maybe people don't like that.

Maybe parents do not appreciate when their children are used as hostages every time a teacher feels s/he wants more money.

Because for decades they didn't have to justify their value.

You wanted job A. Job A was a union place you were forced to join.

 

[glenn1]

My aunt went through a really rough situation with a school administrator and without the union she would have been screwed, so I can see the merit of the unions.

The teacher's union has the expertise to serve as a professional standards organization as a core value-add activity, similar to what the Financial Standards Accounting Board does for accountants. It's an open question whether a union is needed to do this activity, but I can see it playing that role. Of course this would require the organization to embrace far more accountability for its members that the current teacher unions seem to do. They'd also have to lose the "heads I win, tails you lose" mindset that if kids do well in the classroom it's due to a great teacher but it's never the teachers' fault if they do poorly.

 

[cubby1223]

To start off with, I believe unions are necessary to grow a middle class. Individuals on their own have little chance.

But the unions operating in the U.S. today want to ignore the reality that transportation and communication technologies have advanced. They still operate on the tactic that the business cannot find and hire replacements if the union employees throw a fit.

There was once a time when business owners treated employees like worthless animals. Unions did a wonderful job changing that culture. But today unions are seen as defenders of people who feel they are entitled, they have special privileged over the rest of society. It doesn't work. It will not work. Unions need to adapt. First thing is to stop defending the percentage of workers who are truly lazy and unproductive.

A business needs to be successful before they can pay the employees what they want. Unions today demand the employees get their share even if it is detrimental to the life of the business. Unions have lied to themselves so long it's as if some believe owners are gigantic piggy-banks just need to shake harder and more money will always flow out. Look at Hostess. In the public sector space, the teacher union strike last year in Chicago was also a great example of people making demands that were very unreasonable for the city to afford. Public schools are shutting down and cheaper charter schools are taking their place. Why? Because the Democrat/Union stronghold of Chicago cannot afford the demands.

Or, at least that's the perception they convey in the actions they take.

 

[Subyman]

Collective bargaining only works when the union controls a resource the employer needs. In this case the labor. When unions can't control the labor force, they have no bargaining power.

In this day and age, labor in the states is almost not needed. Which is why much of the manufacturing jobs were shipped out. Only those companies forced to stay for various reasons, usually due in part to laws where they are located forcing them to not leave and to stay partnered with unions, are still using a lot of U.S. labor.

The problem is that unions work for some things and not for others in the US anymore. Even then, without laws to pressure companies to stay, companies are going to do business in the way that makes the most fiscal sense. If that means changing bases outside the states and using a workforce elsewhere it is going to be done.

There is no easy answer here.

I agree, no easy answer at all. Unions have evolved away from major labor abuse issues such as hazardous work conditions and into job security and administration abuse issues. These are still very important issues that may not be as headline-worthy as black lung, but still affect large numbers of employees.

 

[trenchfoot]

Looking at this situation from a wider perspective, whenever a downturn in the economy is experienced, the usual knee jerk reaction from some will be that it's the unions who are the cause while completely ignoring the complicity that management had in the circumstances. Likewise, whenever companies go belly up the same knee jerk reaction takes place with little or no reasoning applied to how badly management did its job in keeping the company in the black or in the company's ability to adapt and change with the times, or even in the company's (in)-ability to negotiate with the unions effectively with the foresight and proper planning in mind.

And there's not ever a mention of those predatory get rich quick take-over/sell-off corporate scam artists that leave thousands unemployed with no severance and no pension to speak of, especially so if those workers were unionized. Oh no, in those cases, "its just business" as the saying goes. Or "better yet", it was the unions that put those companies at risk in the first place. lol

And never does it ever get mentioned of the numerous companies that find great success in partnering with unions toward creating a well oiled workforce that enjoys job security, advancement opportunities and the uplifting of lifestyles that go with it. As an example, just look at how the US auto industry turned around so quickly, with both unionized and non-unionized shops doing equally well. The credit for this turnaround should, IMO, be equally shared between management and the unions, with management willing and able to adapt and meet the competition on equal terms and with the labor force willing to make the necessary concessions to keep their jobs.

Along with the uptick in profits, those non-union shops in the auto industry should tip their hats off to the unionized shops who fought for and received the wage and benefits packages they deserved, of which the management of those non-unionized shops use as benchmarks to configure what their own non-unionized employees should get. Resultantly, whenever the union shops bargain and receive increases in compensation, the wage lines of the non-union shops usually go up proportionaltely in order to keep their best workers in-house. Small wonder why the corporatists want to completely get rid of the unions, for without the unions occasionally garnering a bigger piece of the corporate profit pie, there would be no reason for the non-union shops to keep pace.

Also, I think it so clever for some anti-union folks who use the time lag gap between when a union contract gets ratified and the duration of same with the unfortunate occasional downturn in the economy, most of which is attributed to the very rich manipulating and exploiting the economy for personal gain but never ever gets pinned down on it. For all of a sudden, the union workers who settled their contract years earlier are now made to look greedy and overly compensated when it was these workers simply being the victims of circumstances.

My point being, in regards to the unique relationships unions have with management, it takes two to create a specific set of circumstances. The responsibility and accountability for the demise or the success of a company or the economy as a whole, should be shared and not viewed through biased eyes.

 

[ivwshane]

The problem I see with most unions is that they aren't optional. If all unions were optional then people would be able hold unions accountable to what the workers need and not what union leaders want. Basically a union where membership is optional is a way to make the unions work harder for their people.

I know in some states, joining a union is optional but from what I understand they still have to represent non union workers. It shouldn't be like that. Not a member? Kick rocks!

 

[sportage]

Unions aren't what they use to be. And have little power when up against the employer.
I've known companies where should they disagree with the employees union representation, the company simply shuts down or sells out.
Borden's dairy for one.
Gawd I miss their Ice Cream Sandwiches...

 

[lopri]

We've had this discussion before. Just because you're having a snit fit about Citizens United campaign finance ruling is no reason to eliminate the concept of corporate personhood. Unless you like the idea of the Bill of Rights not applying to unions and allowing the government to seize their property without compensation, conduct searches for no reason, no longer allow the union to sign contracts and own property, etc ad nauseum.

Which is why Citizens United is a farce, and you have a complete misunderstanding of that ruling. I would support that ruling if the justices and the conservatives are willing to follow the principle they announced in that ruling, but the reality is that they apply it only to the results of their liking.

Conservatives argue that compulsory union membership violates free speech or associational rights of individual workers by requiring non-members represented by a union to pay representation fees. Of course that is not their actual motive because they never care for workers' speech rights. (unless the worker happens to be Christian opposing abortion or something) But it's an argument anyway.

But, you see, there is a quite substantial similarity between how unions work and corporations' decision-making in electioneering spending. If forcing non-union members to pay for representation they do not want is a violation of those non-consenting members' free association rights, then, surely, forcing non-consenting shareholders to pay for political spending that they disagree with is a violation of those shareholders' 1st Amendment right. The parallel is unmistakable. Furthermore, if by state corporate laws or voting mechanism a corporation can make decision on political spending without offending the 1st Amendment, why can't unions do the same?

In Citizens United, the conservatives (non)answered this dilemma of shareholder protection by essentially saying that non-consenting shareholder can sell their stocks and leave the corporation whose political spending they disagree with. They did not say anything about unions. Care to guess why? Why yes, if you apply the same logic to union membership, workers who do not agree with the union's political speech can of course quit their job! The conservatives on the court did not want to give the same protection to unions that they gave to corporations, so they simply ignored unions in their writing. It shows how politically motivated the conservatives on the court are.

Conservatives have been making a mockery of the 1st Amendment in so many contexts by abusing and twisting it to the point of absurdity. I have every confidence that the time will come to see this as what it is.

 

[Exterous]

Or maybe people grew up in states like Michigan where the unions demanded more and more money until businesses crumbled and the whole state almost died simply because of union greed.

Unions were needed before all the government regulations. Now they exist solely to extort money.

I think this is a big part of the problem. The union business relationship works well when its in balance but there are some rather public cases where the balance tipped grossly in the union's favor. GM and the chicago teacher's union are two good examples.

However these examples should not be used to get rid of unions but simply move them back into balance. Otherwise we'll just see the pendulum swing back in the other direction

 

[cabri]

Which is why Citizens United is a farce, and you have a complete misunderstanding of that ruling. I would support that ruling if the justices and the conservatives are willing to follow the principle they announced in that ruling, but the reality is that they apply it only to the results of their liking.

Conservatives argue that compulsory union membership violates free speech or associational rights of individual workers by requiring non-members represented by a union to pay representation fees. Of course that is not their actual motive because they never care for workers' speech rights. (unless the worker happens to be Christian opposing abortion or something) But it's an argument anyway.

But, you see, there is a quite substantial similarity between how unions work and corporations' decision-making in electioneering spending. If forcing non-union members to pay for representation they do not want is a violation of those non-consenting members' free association rights, then, surely, forcing non-consenting shareholders to pay for political spending that they disagree with is a violation of those shareholders' 1st Amendment right. The parallel is unmistakable. Furthermore, if by state corporate laws or voting mechanism a corporation can make decision on political spending without offending the 1st Amendment, why can't unions do the same?

In Citizens United, the conservatives (non)answered this dilemma of shareholder protection by essentially saying that non-consenting shareholder can sell their stocks and leave the corporation whose political spending they disagree with. They did not say anything about unions. Care to guess why? Why yes, if you apply the same logic to union membership, workers who do not agree with the union's political speech can of course quit their job! The conservatives on the court did not want to give the same protection to unions that they gave to corporations, so they simply ignored unions in their writing. It shows how politically motivated the conservatives on the court are.

Conservatives have been making a mockery of the 1st Amendment in so many contexts by abusing and twisting it to the point of absurdity. I have every confidence that the time will come to see this as what it is.

A shareholder can sell their stock in a company if they do not like the way the company operates.

A union member is not allowed to not pay the union fees.

 

[JockoJohnson]

This is public unions we are talking about. They have held the taxpayer hostages for years. There should be no public unions. I am all for private unions but public unions are a joke.

 

[rudeguy]

This is public unions we are talking about. They have held the taxpayer hostages for years. There should be no public unions. I am all for private unions but public unions are a joke.

I hate unions. Their sole purpose to is extort money from employers. However this is America and they have a right to exist, even public ones. Forcing people to join any union should be illegal though. That goes against everything this country stands for.

 

[lopri]

A shareholder can sell their stock in a company if they do not like the way the company operates.

A union member is not allowed to not pay the union fees.

Do you even read what you quote?

 

[Atreus21]

I've no issue with unions when they're a response to overt employer abuse. I don't like forming unions for its own sake.

 

[ElFenix]

Collective bargaining only works when the union controls a resource the employer needs. In this case the labor. When unions can't control the labor force, they have no bargaining power.

that's kind of the whole point - keep wages up by keeping the labor pool small. that's pretty much impossible to do without a closed plant.

the unions have largely shot themselves in the foot, between corruption, protecting and sometimes encouraging bad behavior by the members (asshole on the picket line, but on the assembly line workers should be angels), not having any idea how to deal with post-industrial workers, and (critically, i think) a seeming lack of competition between unions for the right to represent workers.

Or maybe people grew up in states like Michigan where the unions demanded more and more money until businesses crumbled and the whole state almost died simply because of union greed.

Unions were needed before all the government regulations. Now they exist solely to extort money.

the unions and the automakers deserve each other. it's hard to think of two bigger sacks of shit.

 

[CitizenKain]

I hate unions. Their sole purpose to is extort money from employers. However this is America and they have a right to exist, even public ones. Forcing people to join any union should be illegal though. That goes against everything this country stands for.

The only extorting that should happen is the employer on the employee. Bring back child labor and company script.

 

[DrPizza]

so the super strong teachers union in Chicago are producing the best kids in the country right?

I don't think unions are the cure for everything, including Chicago's problems, but I think it's somewhat foolish to cast the blame on the unions. Do you think it's merely an incredible coincidence that the states with stronger teachers unions also have the best educational outcomes in general?

I hate unions. Their sole purpose to is extort money from employers. However this is America and they have a right to exist, even public ones. Forcing people to join any union should be illegal though. That goes against everything this country stands for.

That's complete nonsense. Weird that of a typical teachers contract, only a few pages pertain to wages, but far more pages pertain to conditions whose purpose is for a better educational setting.

I'd bet that if they were unionized nurses in Texas, they'd have felt they had some ground to stand on for refusing to work with inadequate equipment and training for ebola.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'd bet that if they were unionized nurses in Texas, they'd have felt they had some ground to stand on for refusing to work with inadequate equipment and training for ebola.

Doctors are unionized by their own licensure and they very often put their wages into more paper. so unionizing nurses would lead to even more disaster because the nurses are often smarter than the doctors. SD of IQ between nurses is much greater than variation in intelligence from doctor to doctor.

And psychiatrists generally have a lot of knowledge (mainly about their field with limited knowledge in outside interests) but they have mediocre fluid reasoning ability (and low to moderate emotional quotient) as a group. For example, please look at what Lee Silverman got himself into and the risk he put not only himself in, but also the slain social worker (did he even cry when that lady got murdered?); someone with an independent mind wouldn't throw a hissy fit if their patient refused or resisted certain treatment.

 

[trenchfoot]

I hate unions. Their sole purpose to is extort money from employers. However this is America and they have a right to exist, even public ones. Forcing people to join any union should be illegal though. That goes against everything this country stands for.

And employers never never never EVER attempt to extort undue time and effort from their employees via intimidation, veiled threats, favoritism, divisive policies and every other time honored trick to squeeze that very last penny of profit out of them?

The unions gave us 40 hr. work weeks, overtime, holidays off, vacations, health care benefits and more. Benefits that so many of us simply take for granted. I'm positive YOU have benefited from the entirely risky efforts of what unions have given the nation. And these things that you benefit from are being methodically taken away.

Do you really think if given the opportunity, big business wouldn't jump at the chance to take back any and all of these things in the hopes of reaping profits beyond their wildest dreams? Big business has been incessantly chipping away at all of those things that we take for granted. Their fondest dream is to get rid of "big gov't" regulations that ensure a safe work place, decent working hours and, through the NLRB, the ability of the average hourly worker to challenge big business' efforts to deny their workers an avenue for seeking recompense against unfair labor practices. Big business wants to get rid of the requirement to pay overtime, salary compensation. Big business have been busy driving down wage lines and removing any and all obstacles toward giving their investors and upper management huge salaries and obscene bonuses. And the Repub leadership is on the forefront of giving Big business exactly what they want, when they want it.

And guess what? Big Business is succeeding in their efforts in this regard. Just look at how the middle class and the poor have fared in comparison with the very rich for the most glaring evidence of such.

Without organized representation, without the gov't regulations keeping in check the abuses that Big Business considered common practice only a few decades ago, the American worker will be in an even worse predicament than they are now.

"Ignore this at your own peril" as the saying goes.

 

[IronWing]

Yes, put the wealth back in the TAXPAYERS pocket, not in the union leadership.

This is a PUBLIC UNION that has members paid by the taxpaying public

The public, through their elected reps, hire teachers so what is your problem with exchanging dollars for services?