Unions in the US

[NYcarbineer]

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,

was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.

The question is, why are you happy about that?

 

[antagon]

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,

was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.

The question is, why are you happy about that?

because unions =/= the american worker. the evolution of their labor rights and wages have been independent from the rest of ours, and have been achieved at the expense of the cost-benefit of american workers on average. by boxing out our labor market from some of the industries suffering the most in a deindustrializing developed economy, unions have been overrepresented in the extent which they can be implicated in the failure of american labor to compete with foreign labor markets.

i dont buy the labor union co-opt of wider-american worker's rights. i see it more as a hijack.

 

[Two Thumbs]

3rd one.

Once they started bringing in millions and millions, they started giving money to political candidates, like a private person could, then they went batshitcrazy when the very corps they work against (against, not with) got the same right.

All are corrupt, most are totally corrupt.

 

[DaGoose]

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,

was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.

The question is, why are you happy about that?

because unions =/= the american worker. the evolution of their labor rights and wages have been independent from the rest of ours, and have been achieved at the expense of the cost-benefit of american workers on average. by boxing out our labor market from some of the industries suffering the most in a deindustrializing developed economy, unions have been overrepresented in the extent which they can be implicated in the failure of american labor to compete with foreign labor markets.

i dont buy the labor union co-opt of wider-american worker's rights. i see it more as a hijack.

It's too bad you see it as an "us versus them" point of view. You stated a lot in your short reply but I'll try and address a couple of your points.

The evolution of labor rights have been enjoyed by union and non-union alike. Things like minimum wage, overtime, worker comp laws, social security, unemployment, etc. are all products of union support. And if you enjoy any or all of those things you can thank a union.

And....If you really believe that it's because of union wages (which is a very small percentage of America's workforce) that causes us to be non-competitive then I guess you would support going to work for $2.00 per hour with no benefits so we can be "competitive"?

3rd one.

Once they started bringing in millions and millions, they started giving money to political candidates, like a private person could, then they went batshitcrazy when the very corps they work against (against, not with) got the same right.

All are corrupt, most are totally corrupt.

Gee....imagine an organization that donates money to candidates who support their cause!! Will wonders never seize!!

I wonder if the reason they contribute so much to political candidates to preserve worker's right is because companies contribute so much to destroy them?

Glad to see which side you're on.

 

[DaGoose]

Keep them coming guys!!!!

Next?

 

[GHook93]

They had a very VALID and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT role in the beginning. However, they grabbed too much power, became too infested with mobsters and became too corrupt. They are now far more detrimental, then helpful. In this global society and market, they are a leading cause of the American Corp flight overseas.

Today, they still have a place, but it should be at a much reduced, more transparent and far less powerful role!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,

was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.

The question is, why are you happy about that?

because unions =/= the american worker. the evolution of their labor rights and wages have been independent from the rest of ours, and have been achieved at the expense of the cost-benefit of american workers on average. by boxing out our labor market from some of the industries suffering the most in a deindustrializing developed economy, unions have been overrepresented in the extent which they can be implicated in the failure of american labor to compete with foreign labor markets.

i dont buy the labor union co-opt of wider-american worker's rights. i see it more as a hijack.

It's too bad you see it as an "us versus them" point of view. You stated a lot in your short reply but I'll try and address a couple of your points.

The evolution of labor rights have been enjoyed by union and non-union alike. Things like minimum wage, overtime, worker comp laws, social security, unemployment, etc. are all products of union support. And if you enjoy any or all of those things you can thank a union.

And....If you really believe that it's because of union wages (which is a very small percentage of America's workforce) that causes us to be non-competitive then I guess you would support going to work for $2.00 per hour with no benefits so we can be "competitive"?

3rd one.

Once they started bringing in millions and millions, they started giving money to political candidates, like a private person could, then they went batshitcrazy when the very corps they work against (against, not with) got the same right.

All are corrupt, most are totally corrupt.

Gee....imagine an organization that donates money to candidates who support their cause!! Will wonders never seize!!

I wonder if the reason they contribute so much to political candidates to preserve worker's right is because companies contribute so much to destroy them?

Glad to see which side you're on.

uh, no.

Corps just got the right this year, unions have always had the right.

Bis gives me a job, unions get me overpaid. When the pensions can't be made they take the money from the states, from taxpayers that were never part of the union.

If you work a union shop but don't join the union they still take money from your paycheck.

When union miners in Ill wanted starting pay to go from $25 and hour to $27.50/hr the owners said they would be able to sell the coal b/c in Ky the miners got $11 - $15. The unions said FU pay us or we'll strike. The mines shut, and the union goons marched in front of locked fences. 3 months later it dawned on them that no one was going in or out. But they used thier corruption to fuckover everyone else in Il that was looking for a job. They used thier corruption to make it more profitable for any biz to hire and send to COLLEGE any former miner than it was to hire someone with the knowledge on how to do the job. Anyone not a union miner suffered, had to take menial jobs or move out of state.

2 years ago in Bethelehem PA the Sands casino opened about 200 yards away from the last working steal mill in Bethlehem. Was the casino and hotels a great boom for the mill? No, of course not, b/c of the union wages it was still cheaper to import it all from Japan than ship it 200 yards.

Thanks for everything they have done. Now stop it.

 

[asterism]

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,

was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.

The question is, why are you happy about that?

because unions =/= the american worker. the evolution of their labor rights and wages have been independent from the rest of ours, and have been achieved at the expense of the cost-benefit of american workers on average. by boxing out our labor market from some of the industries suffering the most in a deindustrializing developed economy, unions have been overrepresented in the extent which they can be implicated in the failure of american labor to compete with foreign labor markets.

i dont buy the labor union co-opt of wider-american worker's rights. i see it more as a hijack.

It's too bad you see it as an "us versus them" point of view. You stated a lot in your short reply but I'll try and address a couple of your points.

The evolution of labor rights have been enjoyed by union and non-union alike. Things like minimum wage, overtime, worker comp laws, social security, unemployment, etc. are all products of union support. And if you enjoy any or all of those things you can thank a union.

And....If you really believe that it's because of union wages (which is a very small percentage of America's workforce) that causes us to be non-competitive then I guess you would support going to work for $2.00 per hour with no benefits so we can be "competitive"?

3rd one.

Once they started bringing in millions and millions, they started giving money to political candidates, like a private person could, then they went batshitcrazy when the very corps they work against (against, not with) got the same right.

All are corrupt, most are totally corrupt.

Gee....imagine an organization that donates money to candidates who support their cause!! Will wonders never seize!!

I wonder if the reason they contribute so much to political candidates to preserve worker's right is because companies contribute so much to destroy them?

Glad to see which side you're on.

It's too bad you see it as an "us versus them" point of view.

Funny you think it's too bad. Oh, you mean it's too bad for a "scab" to see it that way because that's infringing on territory you own.

The evolution of labor rights have been enjoyed by union and non-union alike. Things like minimum wage, overtime, worker comp laws, social security, unemployment, etc. are all products of union support. And if you enjoy any or all of those things you can thank a union.

If we don't enjoy how all those things have morphed into "services" that are too expensive and yet inadequate can we blame the unions too?

And....If you really believe that it's because of union wages (which is a very small percentage of America's workforce) that causes us to be non-competitive then I guess you would support going to work for $2.00 per hour with no benefits so we can be "competitive"?

Why is it always one extreme or the other? What's wrong with a minimally skilled assembly line worker topping out at $50K in pay and benefits? That's sustainable and puts the average at about $30K which is a living wage. It's generally the break-even point for manufacturing operations to offshore.

Gee....imagine an organization that donates money to candidates who support their cause!! Will wonders never seize!!

Then why fight corporations having the same rights as unions?

I wonder if the reason they contribute so much to political candidates to preserve worker's right is because companies contribute so much to destroy them?

Glad to see which side you're on.

See? "Us vs. them."

 

[asterism]

They had a very VALID and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT role in the beginning. However, they grabbed too much power, became too infested with mobsters and became too corrupt. They are now far more detrimental, then helpful. In this global society and market, they are a leading cause of the American Corp flight overseas.

Today, they still have a place, but it should be at a much reduced, more transparent and far less powerful role!

They are playing the zero sum game too. To save GM and their hefty ownership stake the UAW sold out their own members. Looks like things changed drastically when they would benefit by doing so. As I've said for years, look at what unions do with their own businesses if you want to know how much they really believe their rhetoric.

They even use non-union "scabs" for their protests!

 

[rightwinger]

The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.

Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough

 

[DaGoose]

They had a very VALID and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT role in the beginning. However, they grabbed too much power, became too infested with mobsters and became too corrupt. They are now far more detrimental, then helpful. In this global society and market, they are a leading cause of the American Corp flight overseas.

Today, they still have a place, but it should be at a much reduced, more transparent and far less powerful role!

They had a very VALID and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT role in the beginning.

Would say the same thing about unemployment? Social Security? Overtime? 40 hour work weeks? minimum wage?

Again....Many years ago Caterpillar went on strike to fight the company's determination to put in a two tiered wage and benefit scale. The Union went on strike and lost. Now jobs that used to be full time and paid competitive wages and benefits are now part time and average $13 per hour with no benefits (pension, health insurance, etc.). Their CEO is among the highest paid and the company is making record profits. All this on the backs of the workers making the product.

When the trucking industry deregulated (which broke the Union) jobs that used to be good, well paying jobs went by the wayside. Sure, it opened up a lot of jobs but these jobs, on average, pay $30k-40k per year for driving 6 days a week and being away from home for weeks at a time. "Truck broke down 500 miles from home? Tough. You're not getting paid for the three days it takes to get fixed".

Recent figures show that the foreign, non-union auto makers in the US are beginning to pay wages and benefits comparable to their Union counterparts. Why? To keep Unions out. What do you suppose would happen to these great jobs if the UAW was broken in Detroit? I know and I think you do too.

However, they grabbed too much power, became too infested with mobsters and became too corrupt.

I can agree with this to a small extent. But more that they allowed that perception.

In this global society and market, they are a leading cause of the American Corp flight overseas.

If you truly think.... that then getting rid of Unions, which make up a very small part of private industry, doesn't go far enough. We will need to work for $2.00 per hour with no benefits so we can be "competitive".

Today, they still have a place, but it should be at a much reduced, more transparent and far less powerful role!

That would depend on who you would ask. How about asking the people at CAT?

 

[washamericom]

hey are you the same dagoose i just tangled with over at hannity ?

 

[washamericom]

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!

good poll... B and C

 

[goldcatt]

The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.

Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough

Workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. After all, management does by default. The best negotiations producing the best outcome for both sides are those where the two sides have relatively equal power.

The problem with unions is not the idea behind them, it's the leadership and the nationalized institution. They hit the point a lot of movements do, where most of their initial goals were satisfied and they were left with the choice of where to go next. Some movements at that point fade, which to some extent has happened with the labor movement as membership declines. Some start playing defense of their existing gains. Some find new avenues to promote their cause, which to some extent unions have done but this has also often translated into overreach. But their biggest problem IMO is that the leadership has looked for ways to justify their continued status rather than ways to continue the goals of the movement. There's an institutional disconnect between leadership and membership, and that's where the problems come in.

Going back to smaller, networked local groups rather than a nationalized umbrella would be a start to correcting the institutionalized problems, as well as a back to basics approach with getting the members more involved in actual negotiations. A better defensive game plan is in order too, there are still abuses that happen out there and many go unaddressed by the labor movement in general if they aren't paying members. If they are serious about regaining credibility, it can't be pay to play.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.

Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough

Both.

But once you are unionised you no longer get to negotiate for yourself.

Raises and promotions are based on seniority, not skills, quality or production.

 

[asterism]

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,

was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.

The question is, why are you happy about that?

I don't have to accept your premise to know that a union worker with a 10th grade education who put the same bolt in the same spot on the same general frame for 30 years isn't worth $75K in salary and benefits and that person certainly isn't worth $40K per year for the rest of his life when he stops working. But that's what we've got down here, millions of workers who still get paid for jobs they don't even do anymore. And I'm not talking about annuities where they contributed their whole lives and now draw on it, I'm talking about pension benefits that were negotiated after they left but in exchange for their support they got their own windfalls.

My neighbor retired from his assembly line job in 1984 at 46. He immediately began drawing a pension of $20K per year (40% of his last salary). Since then he has received every cost of living increase, every increase from renegotiated benefit calculations and now draws over $50K per year. This guy worked the same job for 30 years, a job he got when he dropped out of high school when he was 16. He was never a supervisor, never had to learn anything new, never had to do anything different - he put the engine mounts on the frame. He has been compensated over $1.5 Million for that one role that took no education and no special skills.

My neighbor doesn't get paid now for value he adds to the company, but he is still a cost to the company. Paying people for anything but the value they provide the company is unsustainable.

 

[asterism]

The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.

Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough

My answer is yes, workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. It should never be mandatory, and unions should never have the ability to shut a plant down because another plant has a dispute with its own workers. Also, unions should never have the power of the government willing to step in and bail them out of a mess they helped create.

 

[asterism]

The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.

Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough

Workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. After all, management does by default. The best negotiations producing the best outcome for both sides are those where the two sides have relatively equal power.

The problem with unions is not the idea behind them, it's the leadership and the nationalized institution. They hit the point a lot of movements do, where most of their initial goals were satisfied and they were left with the choice of where to go next. Some movements at that point fade, which to some extent has happened with the labor movement as membership declines. Some start playing defense of their existing gains. Some find new avenues to promote their cause, which to some extent unions have done but this has also often translated into overreach. But their biggest problem IMO is that the leadership has looked for ways to justify their continued status rather than ways to continue the goals of the movement. There's an institutional disconnect between leadership and membership, and that's where the problems come in.

Going back to smaller, networked local groups rather than a nationalized umbrella would be a start to correcting the institutionalized problems, as well as a back to basics approach with getting the members more involved in actual negotiations. A better defensive game plan is in order too, there are still abuses that happen out there and many go unaddressed by the labor movement in general if they aren't paying members. If they are serious about regaining credibility, it can't be pay to play.

First a cause, then a business, then a racket.

 

[DaGoose]

The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.

Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough

Workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. After all, management does by default. The best negotiations producing the best outcome for both sides are those where the two sides have relatively equal power.

The problem with unions is not the idea behind them, it's the leadership and the nationalized institution. They hit the point a lot of movements do, where most of their initial goals were satisfied and they were left with the choice of where to go next. Some movements at that point fade, which to some extent has happened with the labor movement as membership declines. Some start playing defense of their existing gains. Some find new avenues to promote their cause, which to some extent unions have done but this has also often translated into overreach. But their biggest problem IMO is that the leadership has looked for ways to justify their continued status rather than ways to continue the goals of the movement. There's an institutional disconnect between leadership and membership, and that's where the problems come in.

Going back to smaller, networked local groups rather than a nationalized umbrella would be a start to correcting the institutionalized problems, as well as a back to basics approach with getting the members more involved in actual negotiations. A better defensive game plan is in order too, there are still abuses that happen out there and many go unaddressed by the labor movement in general if they aren't paying members. If they are serious about regaining credibility, it can't be pay to play.

The reason they had to combine resources is to fight the compaies in the political arena that are trying to turn back the clock on workers rights.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you accept the premise that America is a nation in decline and one of the aspects of that decline is that Americans will now generally have to work harder and longer for less than previous generations did.

Union workers aren't overpaid unless you believe that they were always overpaid. If you believe that the union factory and mill and plant and transportation workers of 1950's were overpaid, then you believe that a workingman's wage of that era that was able to support a family, buy a home, buy the necessities and some degree of luxury, without BOTH spouses working,

was too high a wage. Well, I guess the anti-union people can be happy now, because the ability to raise a family on one paycheck is a far rarer privilege in this country than it was in the past.

The question is, why are you happy about that?

I don't have to accept your premise to know that a union worker with a 10th grade education who put the same bolt in the same spot on the same general frame for 30 years isn't worth $75K in salary and benefits and that person certainly isn't worth $40K per year for the rest of his life when he stops working. But that's what we've got down here, millions of workers who still get paid for jobs they don't even do anymore. And I'm not talking about annuities where they contributed their whole lives and now draw on it, I'm talking about pension benefits that were negotiated after they left but in exchange for their support they got their own windfalls.

My neighbor retired from his assembly line job in 1984 at 46. He immediately began drawing a pension of $20K per year (40% of his last salary). Since then he has received every cost of living increase, every increase from renegotiated benefit calculations and now draws over $50K per year. This guy worked the same job for 30 years, a job he got when he dropped out of high school when he was 16. He was never a supervisor, never had to learn anything new, never had to do anything different - he put the engine mounts on the frame. He has been compensated over $1.5 Million for that one role that took no education and no special skills.

My neighbor doesn't get paid now for value he adds to the company, but he is still a cost to the company. Paying people for anything but the value they provide the company is unsustainable.

The only thing your neighbor did was take advantage of a benefit that was bargained for him. If it is "unsustainable" from a company point of view they should never had agreed to it.

I will say that the old "30 and out" retirement plans are becoming dinosaurs. Most (if not nearly all) are either an 85 point plan or 60 years old (with reduced pensions at 55) with at least 10 years of service.

 

[DaGoose]

The question is...should workers have the right to negotiate collectively rather than as individuals? Unions, or the threat of unions keep management from singling out individual workers.

Unions have been instrumental in obtaining fair labor practices, safety and fair wages. In booming economic times, unions have too much power......in a recession, they do not have enough

Workers should always have the right to negotiate collectively. After all, management does by default. The best negotiations producing the best outcome for both sides are those where the two sides have relatively equal power.

The problem with unions is not the idea behind them, it's the leadership and the nationalized institution. They hit the point a lot of movements do, where most of their initial goals were satisfied and they were left with the choice of where to go next. Some movements at that point fade, which to some extent has happened with the labor movement as membership declines. Some start playing defense of their existing gains. Some find new avenues to promote their cause, which to some extent unions have done but this has also often translated into overreach. But their biggest problem IMO is that the leadership has looked for ways to justify their continued status rather than ways to continue the goals of the movement. There's an institutional disconnect between leadership and membership, and that's where the problems come in.

Going back to smaller, networked local groups rather than a nationalized umbrella would be a start to correcting the institutionalized problems, as well as a back to basics approach with getting the members more involved in actual negotiations. A better defensive game plan is in order too, there are still abuses that happen out there and many go unaddressed by the labor movement in general if they aren't paying members. If they are serious about regaining credibility, it can't be pay to play.

First a cause, then a business, then a racket.

No....it's still a cause.

With 22 states being "Right To Work" why is it a "racket"?

Let's explore this a bit.....