Unions in the US

[JBeukema]

Unions:
A) are evil communists who hate America

B) have largely served their purpose; are becoming obsolete

C) have largely become greedy and detrimental to their original purpose

D) must keep fighting!

 

[StevenC]

C

They used to be good but when they became their own entity they became too greedy.
Organized labor is a good thing in certain areas. But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

 

[hortysir]

I vote C.
With the formation of more fair labor laws and practices, Unions serve to pad the pockets of their officers more than they do to help the members or the job force.

 

[RadiomanATL]

C
But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

 

[B. Kidd]

I voted obsolete.
The globalization path has been firmly cemented and it dictates that they go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[goldcatt]

There's a lot of truth to both B and C, as far as the organized modern union goes. But the concept of organization of labor in general will never be obsolete. Laws can be repealed, gains can be lost, there will always need to be some mechanism for workers to stand up for themselves.

The problem with the modern organized union is too many times it's just a different elite "standing up" on their behalf instead, and not necessarily working in anyone's interests but their own.

 

[shintao]

C

They used to be good but when they became their own entity they became too greedy.
Organized labor is a good thing in certain areas. But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

And what makes you think that the leaders do not come from the rank of the workers?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Union workers are out to get everything they can get. As a result, union shops make the prices of what they produce go up. Also, the attitude of the union workers that I know suck. They are pretty demanding and will tell you what they won't do but seldom, if ever, do you hear one say what he will do. They are only interested in protecting their job so their sub-par performance will not get them fired. I think all unions should be outlawed.

 

[shintao]

I vote C.
With the formation of more fair labor laws and practices, Unions serve to pad the pockets of their officers more than they do to help the members or the job force.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, considering the labor leaders negotiate Union wages and benefits for their workers and then serve a multitude of other functions during the year, from negotiating contracts with employers to dispatching Union members to job sites, overseeing their rights, etc.? Even after an Union member retires, they are there for their pensions and other benefits throughout their entire lives.

 

[shintao]

C
But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

I don't see where "pressure" enters the picture. Once workers understand the benefits of being a Union member, they join. If it was pressure you would see Union mmbers with strike & unfair labor practices signs in front of every business in America. So I feel you are being illogical as to what Unions actually do. In most cases Unions are invited into businesses due to unfair business practices being used against employees. Pressure must be standing up against corporations that are violating labor, safety, and other laws against workers.

 

[RadiomanATL]

C
But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

I don't see where "pressure" enters the picture.

Thats because you are willingly blind. Like every other business they will only show the rosey side of things to their potential customers, and minimize and ignore the negative.

And once you join, in the majority of cases, you can't back out.

 

[hortysir]

I vote C.
With the formation of more fair labor laws and practices, Unions serve to pad the pockets of their officers more than they do to help the members or the job force.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, considering the labor leaders negotiate Union wages and benefits for their workers and then serve a multitude of other functions during the year, from negotiating contracts with employers to dispatching Union members to job sites, overseeing their rights, etc.? Even after an Union member retires, they are there for their pensions and other benefits throughout their entire lives.

The formation of unions forced the hands of our labor department's guidelines. They were pushed into doing more for the labor force to more closely mirror union benefits.
Unions have since gone ape-shit crazy with their benefits.
By tacking on all these outrageous "legacy costs" they've priced us out of our own products.

Take the recent discussion of the CF bulbs and the banning of incandescents for example.
GE has had to lay off more than 500 workers because, with their current cost of labor, they won't be able to produce the new bulbs efficiently and would be cost prohibitive.
It's either pay $14 per bulb from ourselves or a buck or 2 from China.

 

[Moon]

C
But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

Yep. My 70+ year old mother was forced to join the union where she works. She works because she wants to and typically puts in less than 10 hours per week, but she HAD to join the union, or else. So now the union takes like $4 a week out of her paycheck.

 

[shintao]

Union workers are out to get everything they can get.

Sounds like Corporations, not Unions. Unions will negotiate downward for the benefit of the corporation in hard times like this. They will work for 25% less than contracted if need be to help the corporation ~ just like GM Union workers did. But I might ask, why do you work if not to get all you can get? Are you a capitalist or defeatous? Maybe you should work for free?

As a result, union shops make the prices of what they produce go up.

I would have to see an example of this. Have a reference??

Also, the attitude of the union workers that I know suck. They are pretty demanding and will tell you what they won't do but seldom, if ever, do you hear one say what he will do. They are only interested in protecting their job so their sub-par performance will not get them fired. I think all unions should be outlawed.

Hmm, is there something wrong with protecting your employment? I have not seen sub-par performance, so show an example. Usually Union workers do more than nonunion workers, hence better pay & benefits. What other interest should a worker have than protecting his employment? Do you still have that job working for free & doing everything you can to quit? IF I followed your logic, that would be the case...........

 

[goldcatt]

C
But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

I don't see where "pressure" enters the picture. Once workers understand the benefits of being a Union member, they join. If it was pressure you would see Union mmbers with strike & unfair labor practices signs in front of every business in America. So I feel you are being illogical as to what Unions actually do. In most cases Unions are invited into businesses due to unfair business practices being used against employees. Pressure must be standing up against corporations that are violating labor, safety, and other laws against workers.

The problem in a lot of unions is that decisions aren't made locally, by individuals with a stake in the outcome of the negotiations.

For example, your local union leader may in fact be a worker. At that level, most are. But when it comes time to negotiate the contract, either a union representative from the regional or national organization will be brought in or the local union head will receive instructions from them on how to proceed and what they will and will not accept.

The problem here is twofold. First, the national union heads are typically not workers and far too removed from the local situation to understand that while some of their demands may be perfectly reasonable, especially in a case where there had been abuses, many in fact are not. They are in essence willing to sacrifice a certain number of positions altogether to layoffs or attrition at that point to maintain their demands for the rest. Taking one for the team probably isn't what most members have in mind when they sign a union contract.

Second, the guidelines in most unions are not tailored to the shop. Their ideas tend to be one size fits all. So you have negotiators in a poor rural area bargaining for benefits or wages that might be reasonable in an urban area with a high cost of living, but are completely ridiculous and out of reach for the shop where they're located.

The goal of organized labor is (or should be) to bargain collectively and level the playing field with management, not to take a superior position and hold management over a barrel until they get everything they want. It's a balancing act, not a dictatorship. That's something too many modern unions forget.

Are there still good ones? Sure. But they tend to be small and local, once you go national you're pretty much going to see problems.

 

[JBeukema]

checks and balances, gold?

 

[glew]

I detect Shintao might be a union hack? I too have had a couple bad experiences with union workers...Out of the couple times I've ever dealt with them personally...Libs complain about a couple instances of violence in thousands of tea Party rallies, but ignore the fact that there is violence in every 2-3 union rallies...There should be a wage cap on union members...minimum wage + 20%...their original intent was to protect the most vulnerable workers...Fat ass plumbers, electicians, and auto workers, who make $35 an hour have destroyed the market for future fat ass plumbers, electricians, and auto workers.

 

[Missourian]

Like I said in the other thread...the modern incarnation of the Union has become what they sought to oppose... but organizer labor still has a function to serve.

The capitalist model where the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer leads to the same destination as the pseudo-communist two-tiered systems of Soviet Russia or medieval Europe , albeit more slowly.

There will be peasants and there will be lords.

Organized labor can counterbalance big business and help bridge the wealth gap in America...but it will require a nearly complete remodel of Union objectives.

Unions need to be the voice of all American labor, not just Union labor.

 

[shintao]

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

I don't see where "pressure" enters the picture.

Thats because you are willingly blind. Like every other business they will only show the rosey side of things to their potential customers, and minimize and ignore the negative.

And once you join, in the majority of cases, you can't back out.

You say you can see, so produce examples with references. Usually the negative is why the Union is asked there to organize the workers. And why anyone would want to quit a Union is beyond me, but they can go work non-union if they choose.

 

[hortysir]

I detect Shintao might be a union hack?

Ya think?