There Has To Be Some BALANCE In This Matter of Unions

[MarcATL]

To be honest, the right has a point in their opposition of unions, however they are wrong. They are correct in recognizing the dangers of unions. As with anything, like business or capitalism, unions can get out of control and power-hungry, and as such, should be curbed.

However, that's not to say that they should not exist, just as no one sensible would argue that businesses, or capitalism should not exist, they just need to be curbed...aka regulated, as the case may be.

It is true, that unions can foster a culture of laziness, I've witnessed it myself, being part of management in a prominent company in NY that most everyone has heard of when I lived there. People can get into the whole attitude of "well that's not my job on paper, so I'm not doing it." However, that really boils down to the individual, remember "Individual Responsibility" Republicans?

At the same time, unions have been a TREMENDOUS force of good in this country and others, creating certain standards for workers, destroying child-labor abuse, getting folks fair compensation, regulating the work week as far as how many hours an employer can force an employee to work, etc., etc., etc., the list is long. So therefore, there is a place for them.

The Republicans cannot come to the table expecting to do away with unions for good, that's not sensible, it's radical. At the same time Democrats must not feel that unions can do no wrong, they can, just as businesses can and do.

We just need to find a happy medium...that's the trick.

My 2 cents.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, then only unions can form in the private sector and we'll call it a deal.

 

[syrenn]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

 

[bodecea]

OK, then only unions can form in the private sector and we'll call it a deal.

Before unions in the public sector, you had the Spoils System. You want that back?

 

[Mac1958]

To be honest, the right has a point in their opposition of unions, however they are wrong. They are correct in recognizing the dangers of unions. As with anything, like business or capitalism, unions can get out of control and power-hungry, and as such, should be curbed.

However, that's not to say that they should not exist, just as no one sensible would argue that businesses, or capitalism should not exist, they just need to be curbed...aka regulated, as the case may be.

It is true, that unions can foster a culture of laziness, I've witnessed it myself, being part of management in a prominent company in NY that most everyone has heard of when I lived there. People can get into the whole attitude of "well that's not my job on paper, so I'm not doing it." However, that really boils down to the individual, remember "Individual Responsibility" Republicans?

At the same time, unions have been a TREMENDOUS force of good in this country and others, creating certain standards for workers, destroying child-labor abuse, getting folks fair compensation, regulating the work week as far as how many hours an employer can force an employee to work, etc., etc., etc., the list is long. So therefore, there is a place for them.

The Republicans cannot come to the table expecting to do away with unions for good, that's not sensible, it's radical. At the same time Democrats must not feel that unions can do no wrong, they can, just as businesses can and do.

We just need to find a happy medium...that's the trick.

My 2 cents.

I think that, as usual, both ends of the argument have reasonable points. Strong current wages and workplace safety rules are valuable and critical. But post-employment costs and quality concerns have to be addressed as well. Move unions away from pensions to 401K's and insure that employees have to keep quality up or lose their jobs (just as any non-union employee would have to do) and I suspect the anti-union arguments would lose most of their effectiveness.

.

 

[bodecea]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

Let's not forget...those choosing to not join a union negotiate their own pay, benefits, etc. and not get what the union negotiates and they do not get the benefit of union representation in legal matters, etc.

That would be totally fair and doable.

 

[BreezeWood]

Where is the Chamber of Labour ?

 

[DiamondDave]

You can collective bargain all you want... and the employer should be able to collectively fire your asses if your demands are unreasonable and if they can find others to work cheaper....

If someone wants a position and they want to join the union to collectively bargain.. fine... If another person wants the same position but does not want union help or representation to negotiate their compensation, etc.. fine

 

[Amelia]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

How would strikes be effective? How would violence against scabs be avoided?

If there is no legal protection for striking workers, what leverage do they really have when there's always a layer of needy people who are willing to step in and work for lower wages even though the workers are striking for something really important?

I think unions have discredited themselves but how far would their gains (such as good working conditions) have to be chipped away before the law should intervene?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, then only unions can form in the private sector and we'll call it a deal.

Before unions in the public sector, you had the Spoils System. You want that back?

That is still going on. And it doesn't address the union problem we have in the public sector.

 

[bodecea]

OK, then only unions can form in the private sector and we'll call it a deal.

Before unions in the public sector, you had the Spoils System. You want that back?

That is still going on. And it doesn't address the union problem we have in the public sector.

Spoils System still going on? Really?

 

[martybegan]

OK, then only unions can form in the private sector and we'll call it a deal.

Before unions in the public sector, you had the Spoils System. You want that back?

Public sector unions did not start to appear until the 1950's and at least at the federal level, civil service reform dates to the early 1900's

The problem with public service unions has less to do with the workers and more to do with the politicians. In larger cities and more populous states, the number of government workers represents a sizable voting block. The unions can use this leverage to gain benefits during negotiations by using their voting power as a tangible benefit to politicans who "play along" and as a tangible penalty to those who don't.

Add this to the fact that we have seen public borrowing become a yearly part of the budget and you get a situation where politicans will promise the world to the public sector unions, usually in benefits, which can be "punted" forward for future politicans to deal with.

Finally, in a private enterprise the unions (normally) know they can only push so far, or the business will become unprofitable and shut down (Hostess). Governments are under the impression they can just keep borrowing and borrowing until it is no longer thier problem.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure, you don't think Obama appointed any of his political allies into the administration? Same dea, only not at the state level. Regardless, public unions are the problem. The laws that protect unions just hurt businesses in the private sector, but they are a dying breed. Most union participation is in the public area.

 

[Dreamy]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

Um not exactly. A labor union and a company equally and mutually agree to a bargained for contract. All that is required is that both parties honor that contract while it is active. So unless the contract stipulates what you mention above that would be a violation.

No one breaks anyone's arms to enter into a contract. Labor laws exist as does contract law.

 

[Staidhup]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

Let's not forget...those choosing to not join a union negotiate their own pay, benefits, etc. and not get what the union negotiates and they do not get the benefit of union representation in legal matters, etc.

That would be totally fair and doable.

Yes, oh by the way, you are aware wages increased by 12% in right to work states when at the same time union wages rose 3% in union controlled states. A business in the 21st century understands their greatest asset is employee's, furthermore that how one treats employee's dictates turnover, which has a profound effect on the bottom line.

 

[syrenn]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

Let's not forget...those choosing to not join a union negotiate their own pay, benefits, etc. and not get what the union negotiates and they do not get the benefit of union representation in legal matters, etc.

That would be totally fair and doable.

yep, i have no issue with that at all.

its still called choice.

 

[syrenn]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

How would strikes be effective? How would violence against scabs be avoided?

If there is no legal protection for striking workers, what leverage do they really have when there's always a layer of needy people who are willing to step in and work for lower wages even though the workers are striking for something really important?

I think unions have discredited themselves but how far would their gains (such as good working conditions) have to be chipped away before the law should intervene?

Its a free market.... if you don't want to work.. and someone else is willing to work for what IS being offered.... tough shit for the striker.... happy day for the person wanting to work.

Just thing of all the jobs that will be available for the people crossing our borders.

 

[syrenn]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

Um not exactly. A labor union and a company equally and mutually agree to a bargained for contract. All that is required is that both parties honor that contract while it is active. So unless the contract stipulates what you mention above that would be a violation.

No one breaks anyone's arms to enter into a contract. Labor laws exist as does contract law.

LOL.... No company wants to "mutually" agree to anything the union forces down their throats. They agree becasue they dont want to have a strike...

so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....

and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.

I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.

 

[Dreamy]

Here is my happy medium.... choose what you want.

unions stop forcing people to join the union. Business should be allowed to hire anyone they want, union or non union.

If people want to walk of their jobs and quit ie strike, that is up to them, business should be allowed to fill the position that is now vacant with a new employee.

bottom line... choice.

Um not exactly. A labor union and a company equally and mutually agree to a bargained for contract. All that is required is that both parties honor that contract while it is active. So unless the contract stipulates what you mention above that would be a violation.

No one breaks anyone's arms to enter into a contract. Labor laws exist as does contract law.

LOL.... No company wants to "mutually" agree to anything the union forces down their throats. They agree becasue they dont want to have a strike...

so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....

and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.

I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.

Sy, nothing is forced down anyone's throat. It is a bargaining system and has worked for years and is fair and equitable. Generally the unions are outgunned financially at these bargaining sessions depending on the company and their resources but big corporations have the big lawyers.

In between contracts, either side is free to not re-up but if they do it is a mutual decision. Each side tries to win the most favorable contract for their side. Nothing wrong there. It is clear very few people who are anti-union have ever been at a contract negotiation table.

As I have stated I don't see this as a black hat/white hate issue. I have seen the good and bad from both sides.

 

[OKTexas]

From what I understand about the MI law, it only changes two things. The employer does not have to act as a dues collector for the union, and the workers can not be forced as a condition of employment to join the union and pay dues.

A union should have no problems attracting workers to join if they prove they provide value for the money they collect in dues. Also why should a company be forced to expend their resources to act as a collection agent for the union?