Hatred of unions

[jasonnfree]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The irony, of course, is had at the advent of the 20th Century employers treated their employees with dignity and respect, paying a living wage and offering safe working conditions, there’d be no need for unions.

But employers didn’t pay a living wage or offer safe working conditions, nor did they threat workers with dignity and respect…

 

[Dragonlady]

Unions were seen by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics as the anathema of free market economics and a distortion on the free market. When the right-wing South American dictators took over in the 1970's, they killed all of the lawyers, university professors and union leaders to stifle all dissent to the freemarket reforms they put in place.

While unions were certainly the reason for the rise of the middle class in Europe and North America, by the 1950's, many of the US unions had been taken over by criminal elements. Jimmy Hoffa is better known as a New York gangster than as the President of the Teamsters Union but he was both.

It was Reagan who initially attacked unions in the US, busting the air traffic controllers' strike by firing all of the workers. Reagan was a huge fan of Milton Friedman, as are successive Presidents since Reagan, until Obama.

Since the Republican Party has been in thrall to Friedman and the Chicago School since the 1970's under Richard Nixon, is it any wonder that they have all been trained to hate unions?

 

[Katzndogz]

It isn't the right that hates unions. Unions are hated by a majority of people. That's why union membership has been dropping across the country and the shift in states is toward right to work.

What happened? That's the question. Unions were very beneficial at one time. They certainly did improve wages and working conditions. As the unions got more powerful they became greedy for the benefit of union bosses. The unions married politicians and created what's been called "unholy alliances". Worker's paid into unions, who used those dues to support politicians, who used their office to benefit the unions. Now there is a revolution with Americans who now hate unions.

 

[Mr Natural]

Can't have workers making too much money.

It makes the 1%ers and their lackeys cry.

 

[Intense]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

There are different kinds of Unions all with unique strengths, weaknesses, and interests. It is just as much a mistake for you to lump them all in together as it is for the Anti-Union crowd. How would you compare a Public Sector Union to a Construction Union? My Wife works fr NYC, my Son is an Iron Worker. I try to not hold it against them. Seriously, you need to look at the specific trends and allegiances, and the relations there with doing just, both failures and successes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It isn't the right that hates unions. Unions are hated by a majority of people. That's why union membership has been dropping across the country and the shift in states is toward right to work.

What happened? That's the question. Unions were very beneficial at one time. They certainly did improve wages and working conditions. As the unions got more powerful they became greedy for the benefit of union bosses. The unions married politicians and created what's been called "unholy alliances". Worker's paid into unions, who used those dues to support politicians, who used their office to benefit the unions. Now there is a revolution with Americans who now hate unions.

The majority of the people hate unionized nurses, cops and firefighters? Judging by the reaction of the people following the Friday after the Boston bombing they couldn't show them enough love. The unionized hospital staffs saved the lives of so many victims because they worked tirelessly well beyond the end of their official shifts.

When the US Airways flight ditched in the Hudson river it was unionized airline pilots that kept everyone alive and a unionized aircrew who got them all out to safety and unionized river boat crews that came to their rescue.

The unionized first responders who are always there following disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods are not "hated by a majority of people". They are only "hated" by the small minority who don't want to pay them a living wage and who don't respect the hard work they put in day in and day out.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

There are different kinds of Unions all with unique strengths, weaknesses, and interests. It is just as much a mistake for you to lump them all in together as it is for the Anti-Union crowd. How would you compare a Public Sector Union to a Construction Union? My Wife works fr NYC, my Son is an Iron Worker. I try to not hold it against them. Seriously, you need to look at the specific trends and allegiances, and the relations there with doing just, both failures and successes.

If a union is weak, the goal of that union is to get stronger and do what the big boys do.

 

[Katzndogz]

It isn't the right that hates unions. Unions are hated by a majority of people. That's why union membership has been dropping across the country and the shift in states is toward right to work.

What happened? That's the question. Unions were very beneficial at one time. They certainly did improve wages and working conditions. As the unions got more powerful they became greedy for the benefit of union bosses. The unions married politicians and created what's been called "unholy alliances". Worker's paid into unions, who used those dues to support politicians, who used their office to benefit the unions. Now there is a revolution with Americans who now hate unions.

The majority of the people hate unionized nurses, cops and firefighters? Judging by the reaction of the people following the Friday after the Boston bombing they couldn't show them enough love. The unionized hospital staffs saved the lives of so many victims because they worked tirelessly well beyond the end of their official shifts.

When the US Airways flight ditched in the Hudson river it was unionized airline pilots that kept everyone alive and a unionized aircrew who got them all out to safety and unionized river boat crews that came to their rescue.

The unionized first responders who are always there following disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods are not "hated by a majority of people". They are only "hated" by the small minority who don't want to pay them a living wage and who don't respect the hard work they put in day in and day out.

So your opinion is that unless these people belonged to a union, they wouldn't show up! Is that what you are saying. It wasn't the skill of the pilot that landed that plane in the Hudson, it was the UNION. Without the union, Sully would have ditched it.

Usually, it is not the union rank and file that's hated but the union structure. That is, until it gets to same place Stockton did.

Stockton bankruptcy showcases results of union greed Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

 

[Intense]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

There are different kinds of Unions all with unique strengths, weaknesses, and interests. It is just as much a mistake for you to lump them all in together as it is for the Anti-Union crowd. How would you compare a Public Sector Union to a Construction Union? My Wife works fr NYC, my Son is an Iron Worker. I try to not hold it against them. Seriously, you need to look at the specific trends and allegiances, and the relations there with doing just, both failures and successes.

If a union is weak, the goal of that union is to get stronger and do what the big boys do.

Lot's of different goals. Personally, my concerns are more with Public Sector Union's.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unions have destroyed every industry they have played a major role in. They have gutted wages for non union workers. Striking workers have committed acts of violence with impunity. Gov't service union workers are bankrupting cities and states across the country. Teachers unions protect corrupt and incompetent teachers.
So yeah, people rightly hate unions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It isn't the right that hates unions. Unions are hated by a majority of people. That's why union membership has been dropping across the country and the shift in states is toward right to work.

What happened? That's the question. Unions were very beneficial at one time. They certainly did improve wages and working conditions. As the unions got more powerful they became greedy for the benefit of union bosses. The unions married politicians and created what's been called "unholy alliances". Worker's paid into unions, who used those dues to support politicians, who used their office to benefit the unions. Now there is a revolution with Americans who now hate unions.

The majority of the people hate unionized nurses, cops and firefighters? Judging by the reaction of the people following the Friday after the Boston bombing they couldn't show them enough love. The unionized hospital staffs saved the lives of so many victims because they worked tirelessly well beyond the end of their official shifts.

When the US Airways flight ditched in the Hudson river it was unionized airline pilots that kept everyone alive and a unionized aircrew who got them all out to safety and unionized river boat crews that came to their rescue.

The unionized first responders who are always there following disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods are not "hated by a majority of people". They are only "hated" by the small minority who don't want to pay them a living wage and who don't respect the hard work they put in day in and day out.

So your opinion is that unless these people belonged to a union, they wouldn't show up! Is that what you are saying. It wasn't the skill of the pilot that landed that plane in the Hudson, it was the UNION. Without the union, Sully would have ditched it.

Usually, it is not the union rank and file that's hated but the union structure. That is, until it gets to same place Stockton did.

Stockton bankruptcy showcases results of union greed Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power. The system of capitalism fails when corporations are deregulated and allowed to run wild. The corporate profit motive is the driving engine of capitalism but it isn't a deity to be worshiped above all else. Unions for all their faults are no better or worse as far as corruption goes than their corporate counterparts. If anything the reverse is true. There are far more instances of corporate greed and corruption that there are of unions. The basis for the hatred of unions has been a deliberate campaign of disinformation by corporations. The reality is that unions perform an essential function in a capitalist society.

 

[boedicca]

I make a distinction between unions for private labor and government workers. Even FDR and George Meaney recognized the conflict of interest in unionizing government workers.

Our country is being held hostage by such government unions who think we work for them.

Private company unions that use the political process for rent-seeking are nearly as bad, but do not have the power of regulatory authority to harass us.

 

[whitehall]

The left seems to use the "h" word a lot when they can't think of the right words. Unions have ruined companies and union leadership is even joked about as being nothing but a criminal enterprise. Municipal unions hold small cities and towns hostage with lavish retirement demands and the municipalities sometimes go broke and are unable to furnish services to citizens. When companies refuse to unionize the unions often use strong arm tactics and even assault to convince them otherwise.

 

[The Rabbi]

Any questions?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7L_cuQJ1pQ]Union Thugs Gone Wild - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AmazonTania]

The majority of the people hate unionized nurses, cops and firefighters? Judging by the reaction of the people following the Friday after the Boston bombing they couldn't show them enough love. The unionized hospital staffs saved the lives of so many victims because they worked tirelessly well beyond the end of their official shifts.

When the US Airways flight ditched in the Hudson river it was unionized airline pilots that kept everyone alive and a unionized aircrew who got them all out to safety and unionized river boat crews that came to their rescue.

The unionized first responders who are always there following disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods are not "hated by a majority of people". They are only "hated" by the small minority who don't want to pay them a living wage and who don't respect the hard work they put in day in and day out.

So your opinion is that unless these people belonged to a union, they wouldn't show up! Is that what you are saying. It wasn't the skill of the pilot that landed that plane in the Hudson, it was the UNION. Without the union, Sully would have ditched it.

Usually, it is not the union rank and file that's hated but the union structure. That is, until it gets to same place Stockton did.

Stockton bankruptcy showcases results of union greed Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power.

Until they get all of the power. Then what sort of checks and balances do you have in the marketplace.

The best sort of checks and balances are between the employee and employer.

The system of capitalism fails when corporations are deregulated and allowed to run wild.

This is false by Capitalism own definition, which leaves to believe you do not understand the concept very well. Shall I give it a go?

The corporate profit motive is the driving engine of capitalism but it isn't a deity to be worshiped above all else. Unions for all their faults are no better or worse as far as corruption goes than their corporate counterparts. If anything the reverse is true. There are far more instances of corporate greed and corruption that there are of unions.

The different between corporate corruption and union corrupt is that if a corporation has been accused of corruption, it can be sued, go out of business or someone can be held accountable. This isn't the same with Unions at all. In many cases, the Unions act as a cartel to extort businesses. Depending on whether or not the union belongs public/private sector, the business has the option of either moving away/negotiating with that union, or staying where they are and taking said abuse.

The basis for the hatred of unions has been a deliberate campaign of disinformation by corporations. The reality is that unions perform an essential function in a capitalist society.

There a couple of economies which performs just fine without the use of Unions, so this is obviously not true. What is essential in a Capitalist society is a strong protection of private property rights and a strong foundation of The Rule of Law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So your opinion is that unless these people belonged to a union, they wouldn't show up! Is that what you are saying. It wasn't the skill of the pilot that landed that plane in the Hudson, it was the UNION. Without the union, Sully would have ditched it.

Usually, it is not the union rank and file that's hated but the union structure. That is, until it gets to same place Stockton did.

Stockton bankruptcy showcases results of union greed Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power.

Until they get all of the power. Then what sort of checks and balances do you have in the marketplace.

Where and when has that ever happened?

The best sort of checks and balances are between the employee and employer.

As in when the employer holds 99.9% of the power and the employee holds 0.01% at most?

This is false by Capitalism own definition, which leaves to believe you do not understand the concept very well. Shall I give it a go?

Please go right ahead.

The corporate profit motive is the driving engine of capitalism but it isn't a deity to be worshiped above all else. Unions for all their faults are no better or worse as far as corruption goes than their corporate counterparts. If anything the reverse is true. There are far more instances of corporate greed and corruption that there are of unions.

The different between corporate corruption and union corrupt is that if a corporation has been accused of corruption, it can be sued, go out of business or someone can be held accountable. This isn't the same with Unions at all. In many cases, the Unions act as a cartel to extort businesses. Depending on whether or not the union belongs public/private sector, the business has the option of either moving away/negotiating with that union, or staying where they are and taking said abuse.

The basis for the hatred of unions has been a deliberate campaign of disinformation by corporations. The reality is that unions perform an essential function in a capitalist society.

There a couple of economies which performs just fine without the use of Unions, so this is obviously not true. What is essential in a Capitalist society is a strong protection of private property rights and a strong foundation of The Rule of Law.

Care to name those economies?

We agree that a "strong foundation of The Rule of Law" is essential however reality dictates that the "Rule of Law" is subject to whomever can pay off the most politicians. That problem exists across the board. Until it is resolved there will forever be an "imbalance" between the power of the corporations and the workers. Unions are the single most effective tool that can address this deficiency. Until we have true "Rule of Law" we need strong effective unions in place.

 

[AmazonTania]

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power.

Until they get all of the power. Then what sort of checks and balances do you have in the marketplace.

Where and when has that ever happened?

The teachers union strike in Chicago which happened not to long ago is a good example. Its very difficult to fire a teacher there. It's great if you are a teacher, not so much if you are a student in a classroom taught by a teacher who is under-performing. The parents want to be able to identify good teachers and reward them with merit pay, but this isn't want the unions want. What the unions want is everyone to have equal treatment, so no one will know the difference.

The unions there weren't fighting for fair treatment. They were fighting for the lack of accountability. When a union has gained enough power to the point of where they no longer want to be held accountable for what they do, they have far too much power.

And this is the problem with public sector unions. At least a private sector business can move out of the state, and then the teachers would be forced to decide if their jobs are worth it. In a public sector job, these employers are stuck.

As in when the employer holds 99.9% of the power and the employee holds 0.01% at most?

Business isn't a one way street. Your employer needs your skills or labour as much as you need his money and benefits. If your employer has all of the bargaining power, it is possible you do not offer much in the table in terms of skills or labour (meaning, your job is a dime a dozen), or your employer has no competition. I am not unionised at all and my employer would cut my wages to zero if he thought he could get away with it. The only thing stopping him is my competition.

Competition also holds as a form of checks and balances. If you don't treat your consumers right, you will lose them to businesses who will. If you don't treat your employees well, you will also lose them to businesses who will.

Please go right ahead.

Definition of 'Capitalism'
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

Open competition, Free Markets doesn't allow for any regulation in the favor of another business, which often happens when regulation is used for the 'good of the people.'

Care to name those economies?

We agree that a "strong foundation of The Rule of Law" is essential however reality dictates that the "Rule of Law" is subject to whomever can pay off the most politicians. That problem exists across the board. Until it is resolved there will forever be an "imbalance" between the power of the corporations and the workers. Unions are the single most effective tool that can address this deficiency. Until we have true "Rule of Law" we need strong effective unions in place.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and I'm pretty sure Qatar has probably never heard of a Union. Singapore often a good example, one of the countries with a highest income per capita and one of the few countries not daft enough to institute a minimum wage law, something labour unions are very big fans of.

Rule of Law dictates that everyone abides by the same rules, regardless of who they are. When you have government picking winners and losers, you no longer have an effective rule of law. This is why small regulation is essential for capitalism to work. The more power you give the government, the more influence these wealthy individuals seek. The government in turn works as defacto protectionism for these corporations and unions.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't like unions for a couple of reasons.
1. They drive a Business out of its profitability(When supply and demand cross) and that leads to it to shut down. Very bad for workers one way or the other.
2. It destroys the ability to do as it does best=simply they can't fire or expect better from their workers. Unions kill charge that would save most businesses.

The second one is a problem within education.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Until they get all of the power. Then what sort of checks and balances do you have in the marketplace.

Where and when has that ever happened?

The teachers union strike in Chicago which happened not to long ago is a good example. Its very difficult to fire a teacher there. It's great if you are a teacher, no so much if you are a student in a classroom before taught by a teacher who is under-performing. The parents want to be able to identify good teachers and reward them with merit pay, but this isn't want the unions want. What the unions want is everyone to have equal treatment, so no one will know the difference.

The unions there weren't fighting for fair treatment. They were fighting for the lack of accountability. When a union has gained enough power to the point of where they no longer want to be held accountable for what they do, they have far too much power.

And this is the problem with public sector unions. At least a private sector union can move out of the state, and then the teachers would be able to decide if their jobs are worth it. In a public sector job, these employers are stuck.

Apples and Oranges comparison. Public education is not a competitive capitalistic endeavor. It is an essential service. Attempting to rate teachers on the performance of students is a completely false premise. This is akin to rating your job performance on the local rainfall in Peru. There is no connection between the effectiveness of a teacher and the socio-economic status of the students that they are teaching. Children from homes that place a value upon education perfrom better than children from poorer homes where there is little emphasis on education. So firing a teacher because the students failed to pass is like blaming your car for not starting when you forgot to put gas in it.

Business isn't a one way street. Your employer needs your skills or labour as much as you need his money and benefits. If your employer has all of the bargaining power, it is possible you do not offer much in the table in terms of skills or labour (meaning, your job is a dime a dozen), or your employer has no competition. I am not unionised at all and my employer would cut my wages to zero if he thought he could get away with it. The only thing stopping him is my competition.

Thank you for making the point. Without unions you would be earning a pittance while being forced to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week. If you got sick you would be fired and replaced.

Competition also holds as a form of checks and balances. If you don't treat your consumers right, you will lose them to businesses who will. If you don't treat your employees well, you will also lose them to businesses who will.

Thanks to unions who were responsible for ensuring that workers were treated well and provided with essential benefits.

Please go right ahead.

Definition of 'Capitalism'
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

Capitalism Definition | Investopedia

Open competition, Free Markets doesn't allow for any regulation in the favor of another business, which often happens when regulation is used for the 'good of the people.'

Free markets are a myth. In essence they are just another way to undercut the power of the workers while improving the profitability of the corporation. Corporations do a have a responsibility to the people of the community in which they are based. If they are purely 100% profit based they end up destroying those communities. Unfettered capitalism is as toxic as communism when it comes to harming people. Without regulation it will do more harm than good.

Care to name those economies?

We agree that a "strong foundation of The Rule of Law" is essential however reality dictates that the "Rule of Law" is subject to whomever can pay off the most politicians. That problem exists across the board. Until it is resolved there will forever be an "imbalance" between the power of the corporations and the workers. Unions are the single most effective tool that can address this deficiency. Until we have true "Rule of Law" we need strong effective unions in place.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and I'm pretty sure Qatar has probably never heard of a Union. Singapore often a good example, one of the countries with a highest income per capita and the only country not daft enough to institute a minimum wage law, something labour unions are very big fans of.

The federation of trade unions has been around in Hong Kong since 1948. Singapore criminalizes the right to strike. Not exactly a bastion of freedom and individual liberty. Qatar is facing the threat of an international boycott of the 2022 World Cup if it continues to obstruct the existence of unions and workers rights. Soccer fans are very pro union.

Rule of Law dictates that everyone abides by the same rules. When you have government picking winners and losers, you no longer have rule of law. This is why small regulation is essential for capitalism to work. The more power you give the government, the more influence these corporations seek. The government in turn works as defacto protectionism for these corporations and unions.

The government does NOT pick "winners and losers". The government is the umpire/referee. Until the myth that the government in the problem is dispelled not much is going to be resolved.

FYI Thank you for your intelligent response. It is always a pleasure to debate someone who is both knowledgeable and coherent.