Labor Unions...Good or Bad?

[Meister]

Labor unions are good for workers, bad for greedy corporations.

You really do only see one side of the equation, huh?

 

[Meister]

Unions were an answer to a problem and if industry had been reasonbly fair and honest with employees, perhaps there would have been no need for unions. The problem usually comes first and then the answers.

At one time before the feds caught up there was a place for unions.
There are more regulations with the labor laws today that I really don't see a need for unions. IMHO

 

[freedombecki]

Oh, yeah. Labor unions

1. Labor Union Fraud Convictions Chart Embezzlement, False Reports, Violence, And More
2. Over 6,000 cases of Union unfair labor practices abuse of its members in 2009
3. Use of dues from members for Politics

Example: NEA


Between 1990 and 2010, 93 percent of donations made by National Education Association political action committees and individual officers went to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org. According to the NEA's own “Status of the American Public School Teacher 2005-2006,” (latest available data produced March 2010) only 41 percent of public school teachers are Democrats.


​

Those things are a far cry from fairly representing members at good wages. Union dues aren't a drop in the bucket, either. It's a spinal tap.

​

 

[MikeK]

Are labor unions good or bad for capitalism and economic growth?

Explain in 300 words or less, please.

Capitalism is a good economic system when its potential is controlled by socialistic regulations, such as labor laws, union protections and equitable taxation. An unregulated (laissez faire) capitalist system will ultimately retard economic growth by progressively depriving the working class of wealth and stifling its circulation.

We've been watching precisely that effect in our own economy for the past three decades. The capitalists have grown fat while the workers are increasingly deprived. Our national economy has been ruined and brought to near collapse.

 

[JoeB131]

Unions remind me of that scene from "Goodfellas" were Ray Liotta is like "fuck you pay me, fuck you pay me, fuck you pay me."

It's not mistake the Italian and Irish mafia made labor unions happen...

It just so happens the delegates and heads are the Kings and Queens and the workers are the pawns.

If people can't see that then they're stupid and deserve $6.50 an hour....

These criminals are guilty of racketeering...

If you think these criminal fucks are for you or the common man then you really are stupid....

I'm just curious why you think any job is only worth $6.50 an hour, but a CEO who runs his company into the ground and needs a government bailout deserves $12,000,000 a year.

All Unions do is make sure that they proceeds are fairly distributed...

And if people running companies were fair, we probably wouldn't need unions.

 

[Toro]

Unions unto themselves are neither good nor bad. It's like asking if corporations are good or bad.

 

[code1211]

/sigh
Again, false.

Care to elaborate on that? If the Union has a collective bargaining agreement for a 2% a year raise, How does one outstanding employee get say a 5% raise in that time frame without getting a promotion? Do they average the raise and take percentages away from non performing employees?

No. They just give the guy a 5% raise!

No union contract would EVER say "All raises are limited to 2%". That's idiotic. What they say is that all raises must be a minimum of 2%. (For example) Over and above is completely fine. Now I'm sure you'll ask why a company would do that, and the answer is to keep the best employees. It happens way more than most "conservatives" are willing to admit.

How does that play among the union brotherhood?

Wouldn't this tend to single out the 5%'er and make him a teacher's pet kind of a thing?

 

[JoeB131]

Unions unto themselves are neither good nor bad. It's like asking if corporations are good or bad.

Oh, no, Corporations are by their definition evil.

Absolutely.

Because they create "deferred responsibility".

I'm not the one destroying your life, Bob. It's "the corporation".

 

[Toro]

Unions unto themselves are neither good nor bad. It's like asking if corporations are good or bad.

Oh, no, Corporations are by their definition evil.

Absolutely.

Because they create "deferred responsibility".

I'm not the one destroying your life, Bob. It's "the corporation".

So "corporations are evil" goes onto your Über-RINO list then? Or are you being sarcastic?

 

[JoeB131]

Unions unto themselves are neither good nor bad. It's like asking if corporations are good or bad.

Oh, no, Corporations are by their definition evil.

Absolutely.

Because they create "deferred responsibility".

I'm not the one destroying your life, Bob. It's "the corporation".

So "corporations are evil" goes onto your Über-RINO list then? Or are you being sarcastic?

When did "complete blind loyalty to multi-national corporations" become the Gospel of the GOP?

Of course, they are fucking evil. They have no loyalty to anyone but a bigger profit.

Greed is the root of all evil.

 

[code1211]

They are good for Democracy.

The biggest lie that has every been told is that investment creates jobs. Bullshit. Consumer activity creates jobs, and unions make sure of consumer activity by making sure that working people get a fair share of the proceeds of an enterprise.

That in turn spurs more consumer activity as other working people make stuff that they buy.

So it is no surprise we enjoyed our greatest prosperity in the period between 1945 and 1975 when the workforce was mostly unionized and people were bringing home good wages.

its no surprise that you apparently think time stopped at that point and the world just stood still.

The biggest lie that has every been told is that investment creates jobs. Bullshit. Consumer activity creates jobs, and unions make sure of consumer activity by making sure that working people get a fair share of the proceeds of an enterprise.

That in turn spurs more consumer activity as other working people make stuff that they buy.

your view of economics and business is, well, infantile.

Well, actually, it's practical.

Frankly, we've tried "Supply Side" economics for the last 30 years, and it's failed miserably.

Time to go back to Keynesian economics. It seems to work better.

Keynesian Economics was never used. It demands that in good time the treasury be filled to overflowing and then in bad time the EXCESS funds be distributed. Keynseian Economics does not recommend borrowing to give it away.

Also, and not to put too fine a point on this, how do we run up a 15+ Trillion Dollar debt using Supply Side economics? Giving away cash is what you are prescribing and that is exactly what the Big 0 is doing.

It's also what W did.

Clinton had the scales going the other way.

Do you ever review real facts or just repeat what you hear at the Union Hall?

 

[code1211]

There is still a need for unions because there are still companies that treat their employees like shit. My husband is an assist. mgr. for Sherwin Williams paint (he worked for M.A.B., SW bought them and nearly every other paint company around here out). Both M.A.B. and SW treat their employees like shit. Raises and performance review are close to non-existent. The stores are minimally staffed - one mgr, one assist mgr and if you're super lucky you might get one part-time person. Stores are open 7 days/wk, 7-7 M-F; 8-5S; 10-5 Sun. Oh they won't allow you to work more than 44 hrs/wk so kiss any over time good bye. They fired Bob after the shit hit the fan in 2008. Bob had been with the company for 20+ years, was 55 yrs. old and his wife had health problems. The company blamed the shitty economy. Thing is . . . after they fired Bob they extended store hours per day then extended store hours to include Sundays. They needed Bob but basically said fuck you to the employees who remained, you have to pick up the slack. While companies have the right to hire/fire whoever they want, someone tell me how it's ok to let an older worker who's been there for years go? Especially when that worker is needed? Loyalty means nothing? Bullshit. And note, this guy wasn't some slacker jackass type, he worked hard and was good at his job. The company didn't give a shit.

They hired Dave about a year ago. Dave was a 23 yr old kid living with mom and dad. He frequently didn't show up, did a half-assed job, his father even came into the store to bitch to the mgr (who is the biggest asshole that God ever created) about his kid's hours and stuff (yes, Dave is a basement dweller). After months of putting up with b.s. from this kid they finally gave him the boot. Know why it took so long? Because as awful as this kid was he was a third person in there to work. wtf? What the hell kind of way is that for a company to treat their employees? Why the hell should the employees have to work like this? They're on their 3rd or 4th part time helper kid . . they all quit because the hours are shit and the way they are treated by the company is shit. I don't blame them for quitting.

My husband had been with M.A.B. for 18 years (in computer operations at the main office) when SW bought them out. He took this position over getting laid off. He believed (hoped) that SW would treat their employees differently. He was wrong. He's been looking for another job with zero luck. In the meantime? He can't even get the day off so he can be here for our daughter's graduation party. So don't tell me unions aren't still necessary. As long as there are companies that treat their employee like a pile of shit there will be a need for employees to unionize. And yes, I've told my husband countless times to get together with other store employees and unionize. Apparently that advice is falling on deaf ears.

What's the cost of a gallon of Paint from SW vs. Home Depot?

 

[Toro]

Oh, no, Corporations are by their definition evil.

Absolutely.

Because they create "deferred responsibility".

I'm not the one destroying your life, Bob. It's "the corporation".

So "corporations are evil" goes onto your Über-RINO list then? Or are you being sarcastic?

When did "complete blind loyalty to multi-national corporations" become the Gospel of the GOP?

Of course, they are fucking evil. They have no loyalty to anyone but a bigger profit.

Greed is the root of all evil.

Yes, greed is the root of all evil. As in the greed that you think people owe you a living, that you have a right to a job, and that you can use violence against anyone who takes that job away from you. That's as greedy as anything. But of course, you won't see that as greed.

Nice leap over the huge projection chasm from asking whether corporations are good or bad to "complete blind loyalty to multi-national corporations" BTW.

 

[code1211]

Unions provide apprenticeship programs and worker safety and health training. Unions are the only means whereby the commodity of labor (and face it, corporations view labor as a commodity not an asset) can get a fair shake in the free wheeling universe of modern American Capitalism.

Unions provide for fairness in pay, benefit, health and safety and many other work place issues.

I understand why Conservatives hate labor. They have been indoctrinated to think that way. The corporate shills they read and listen to are paid by those who want to wring every once of productivity out of a human and then toss it aside like so much scrap. They don't want a prosperous Middle Class anymore. They want bigger stock prices.

Unions force a work environement where the best trend to the least acceptable.

Jim and Joe both get 6 sick days.
Jim uses all of them...3 as additional vacation days.
Joe uses only 3 of them....and loses the other threee...but hey...he was onlyh sick 3 days.

They both get the same raise per union contract.

Next year both Jim AND Joe use all of their sick days, even though neither one was sick for more than 3 days.

So you are against paid sick time? If both employees are under the same contract, and both labor and management signed the contract (calculating the terms of the contract are fair for both sides) why is it the union's fault?

A cost is a cost. If a company employs people who all have vacation and sick time, there must be additional employees to cover that time when the benefitted employees are absent for any reason. Those additional employees are a cost.

If the vacation and sick time result in greater seniority and less training, that is a savings.

If the aging work force results in higher medical claims, that is a cost.

The converse could very easily be true as the incidence of pregnancy among younger workers is much higher than among older workers.

Because people are human beings, the tendency to treat them like they are alive is a temptation, but corporations treat them as if they are cost centers. To a corporation, nothing lives and breathes. Everything either has a cost or a benefit.

The job of Human Resources is to convince the cost centers that the corporation cares about their problems. HR is less about Humans and more about Cost Containment.

The level of caring is not much different than the caring that is accorded to any other cost center. Think tires with wearing tread.

 

[code1211]

All non-union?

You do realize that private companies can still be union shops don't you?

I used to deal with state government projects and not one was ever done by a non-union shop.

i already answered this above.....and NO they are not union just the local shops.....and yes the PO owns the building i work in.....the gardner who does the lawn.....not union.....the guy who comes to wash the vehicles....not union.....the AC guys ....not Union....and i know this because i use the same guys in the building i own....

How many non union jobs did the president's stimulus create directly?

Between the direct attacks on Boeing and Gibson, they fought mightily to eliminate about 3000 non-union jobs.

 

[code1211]

Assume you are talking about postal workers. What you are actually saying is they only work hard one time a year.... they also don't "carry" their routes... they drive their routes.

Actually, postal carriers do work hard, harder now than when I worked there. Some routes in new areas is a driveout, but a lot of the older residential areas are a park and loop, where a carrier has to walk it. The job will eventually wear out a body especially now that more time is spent lugging the mail around. I had surgery because of the job...not fun, the human body was never meant to double as a mule.

Postal workers do work hard. Imagine having to be one that has to deliever mail in the worst of the worst neighborhoods. Not only is it hard work, but can be dangerous as well.


As for unions, a long time ago they were good and needed. But now, with all the federal and state regulations and protections, unions are not nearly as important as they once were. However, even with that in mind, I would not want to see unions gone, I just want to see them reigned in.

By whom?

 

[code1211]

for the record they certainly were 'good', no one sane can argue for the right to employ a child to sow buttons on shirts for what amounted to slave wagers or make people work in The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Co..........


But, alas;


Private Unions- sometime in the mmid 70's the relationship changed into an adversarial one between the workers and management, I think they are both to blame but I have to say I think, the workers or that is their Union mgt. began to exploit that relationship.


Public Sector Unions- all you need to know is neither FDR or George Meany thought collective bargaining etc. in that venue, were a good idea.

as to the bold, that isn't exactly what happened
Reagan’s twenty-five percent federal tax cut caused a considerable addition to the federal deficit, and an almost twenty percent rise in foreign investment on that debt that led to higher large dollar holdings and an unfavorable trade imbalance. While Reagan blamed the deficits on Congress, conservative pundits convinced many in society to blame the unions when factories moved to other countries. However, ninety-five percent of the reason for the deficits was high defense spending and the refusal to raise taxes to pay for it. In 1982, the deficit was 90 billion dollars, and by 1987, it totaled 283 billion dollars. The shortfall of revenue required the US to borrow money, which raised interest rates. The higher interest rates attracted foreign investment, which caused the value of the dollar to rise out of any proportion to its actual worth. As the dollar skyrocketed, imports became cheaper than products made by American labor, and the trade imbalance became even more disproportionate as foreign markets could not afford American made goods at the inflated dollar value either.
These circumstances were what compelled many American businesses to relocate to third-world countries in search of low wage labor platforms. Not the demands for decent working conditions and reasonable increases in wages by unions, not regulations that prohibited industry from urinating in our common well, and not a tax code that billed them at a very reasonable rate for services rendered.

Why have those businesses not returned?

I'm not sure about this, but I think I read somewhere that Reagan's been out of office for 25 freakin' years.

 

[code1211]

Are labor unions good or bad for capitalism and economic growth?

Explain in 300 words or less, please.

I think the UAW, Teamsters and Longshoremen are bad for both the economy and in the case, of the UAW and Teamsters, their members.
They are corrupt and drive the price of labor WAY beyond a "fair wage". I'm happy to cite specifics.
On the other hand there are unions that are good. As much as the GOP likes to villify them, I think teachers are grossly underpaid - especially given the education and responsibilities they have.
Is that over 300 words?

Teachers, like every other group who performs a job, produce a product. Their product is people who either excel or fail. Over the last 40 years, teachers have presided over a structure of education that is has ever increasing expense. It is a structure that has been designed and planned by the teachers.

The product they produce is failing in relation to the product produced by other countries who are faced with the same challenge and the same raw materials.

If they were the best in the world, paying them as the best in the world would be justified. They rank as 25th and are paid as number one.

In the state of Wisconsin, they are paid a little less than twice what the people they have educated are paid.

 

[code1211]

Oh...economic productivity....I see...I suppose I can take that as you wanting the public sector yo take that step off the ledge into the downward spiral...no...fuck that....downward MAELSTROM of shitty wages and benefits that Reagan caused in the private sector.

Nahhh....I'll pass.

News flash: Reagans been out of office for about 25 years. I thought you might have read about it. Didn't they publish that in the Union Weekly Reader?

So....all this talk about Reagan being some kind of demigod for the GOP isn't for real? You mean to tell me that the right's penchant for worshiping billionaires and screwing over the working class isn't a warmed over version of the lie that is trickle down economics?

And you wonder why some on the left call you "dupes".

As it happens, I'm not a millionaire. Probably could have been so if I'd made different choices, but the choices I made are mine.

See? That's the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. A Conservative is one who thinks that his life is the result of his own activities and choices and Liberal thinks that his life is completely controlled by others.

Being a Liberal must be real neat. No choice, no hope and no way out.

The Left attacks and derides anyone who is not completely bereft of hope and ambition. It is only the weak and the lost who are ready for their message of despair and surrender.

The Left calls anyone a dupe who still has hope and responsibility. That label is applied for the enjoyment of the defeated who support the Leftists.

 

[code1211]

So....all this talk about Reagan being some kind of demigod for the GOP isn't for real? You mean to tell me that the right's penchant for worshiping billionaires and screwing over the working class isn't a warmed over version of the lie that is trickle down economics?

And you wonder why some on the left call you "dupes".

I'm not a billionaire, but I made some good money because of Reagan and his economics.

What about everyone else? Fuck them...right?

That should be Obama's Campaign Slogan for 2012.