Unions: The New 'Dinosaurs'?

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. “Multinational corporations have a new ally in their battles with organized labor: unionized workers," reports Crain's Chicago Business. "Some workers are becoming so disillusioned by what their unions can, or rather can't, do for them that they want out."

a. A case in point is the Caterpillar Inc. plant in Joliet, Ill., where "dozens of machinists . . . crossed the picket line during a strike last summer and are planning unfair labor practices complaints" against the International Association of Machinists.

b. When an agreement was reached in mid-August, the contract provided less than the one before it…. management compared compensation to factory hands across Illinois and around the world and concluded that to be "market competitive," Caterpillar had to insist on the concessions.

2. The trouble for private-sector unions is that the global economy vastly increases the supply of labor, diminishing their bargaining power.

3. … an IAM official at the Joliet Caterpillar plant, "says he understood that workers need to provide for their families, which meant crossing the picket line," Crain's reports. "But he adds: 'We don't negotiate for individuals; we negotiate for the benefit of the group.' " The trouble is, you can't have a group without individuals.




4. Meanwhile the Puffington Host reports that "there was an employee walkout at a Walmart Supercenter in St. Cloud, Fla., on Wednesday morning." That is to say, anemployee, Vanessa Ferreira, walked off her job decorating cakes. "The other employees watched her walk out of the store, then went back to doing their jobs."

a. As Reuters reported, the OUR Walmart effort, spurred by the United Food and Commercial Workers, which is seeking to unionize the retail giant's employees, didn't amount to much: "OUR Walmart said it counted 1,000 protests in 46 U.S. states, including strikes in 100 cities--figures that Walmart said were 'grossly exaggerated.' " Whatever the number of strikes, Reuters reports, "there was no evidence they disrupted operations for the start of the crucial holiday shopping season."

5. The Atlantic's Jordan Weissmann blames consumers for low wages at Wal-Mart and other big retailers: "We are the ones who choose where to take our business. And for the most part, Americans have chosen cheap."

a. All workers are consumers, and most consumers are workers--a point on which Weissmann seemingly inadvertently stumbles …

b. Absent globalization, labor would command higher prices, but then so would everything else.” The Power of One - WSJ.com





From the article: “A union is superfluous at best unless it can deliver a better deal for most of its members than they could get on their own.”





Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 91% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)


Rasmussen found that even workers in companies who were in danger of losing their jobs, it was still only 9%. What do the 91% know about union membership that the 9% don’t? One can only conjecture.


In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997 to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006papers.html)


At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) .

Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity?




Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.
 
Unions were an answer to a problem. Many of the problems have now been corrected by government, enlightened management and labor unions. With the corrections unions are no longer needed as they once were. Let's hope that the need for unions will dwindle even more, yet still other organizations, such as the AMA, NEA, ADA and others still exist.
 
Unions were an answer to a problem.


too stupid and 100% liberal!! If the problem was low prices for goods and services then unions solved that problem by driving up prices and impoverishing Americans still further at a time when they were very very poor to begin with.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??
 
Unions were an answer to a problem.


too stupid and 100% liberal!! If the problem was low prices for goods and services then unions solved that problem by driving up prices and impoverishing Americans still further at a time when they were very very poor to begin with.

See why we are slow??

Good idea editing posts so one of your two stock answers fit. Why do you even bother?
 
Unions were an answer to a problem. Many of the problems have now been corrected by government, enlightened management and labor unions. With the corrections unions are no longer needed as they once were. Let's hope that the need for unions will dwindle even more, yet still other organizations, such as the AMA, NEA, ADA and others still exist.

You have a point.
 
Unions were an answer to a problem.


too stupid and 100% liberal!! If the problem was low prices for goods and services then unions solved that problem by driving up prices and impoverishing Americans still further at a time when they were very very poor to begin with.

See why we are slow??

Good idea editing posts so one of your two stock answers fit. Why do you even bother?

too stupid and 100% liberal!! If the problem unions solved 100 years ago was low prices for goods and services then unions solved that problem by driving up prices and impoverishing Americans still further at a time when they were already very very poor to begin with.

See why we are so sure a liberal will be slow??
 
Yes.
The basic problems the unions were needed for are no longer here.
Now...the next problem...corporate monopolies and government corruption.
 
Interesting Post P.C.

I would quote you but ya type so darned much!

Wages and working conditions were the causes for the rise of unions.

Safety: It seems the government/society provides a good number of safety rules which unions fought for. Even non-union job sites seem to use acceptable safety rules. but man, I've worked for some scary scab small business type trucking companies where drivers put you at risk because they felt they could not complain. So I dunno. More dangerous the job the more I want it to be unionized? Stupid truck drivers all bragging about how they can skip the scales and fake log books. Stupid UNIONIZED train crews keeping ridiculous hours of service rules and falling asleep at the throttle.

Wages: We now have minimum wage laws so the government/society has taken up some of the slack. I am somewhat resigned to our fight with the 3rd world in this globalized economy, so I dunno.

Modern unions need to find a reason to exist. They could provide real drug tested employees (some do, the ones I know must have EASY tests). They could provide back up workers when someone is sick maybe? I don't know.

A reason I want to keep modern union machinery in place (damned mafia ties but oh well, gotta fight the Pinkertons), is the THREAT of unionization. Just like nuclear war is a deterrent so is the threat of unionization a deterrent from a business going too far.

Thanks for the good post PC.
 
Unions were an answer to a problem.


too stupid and 100% liberal!! If the problem was low prices for goods and services then unions solved that problem by driving up prices and impoverishing Americans still further at a time when they were very very poor to begin with.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??

Good god Edward. In your ideal world we would have been better off going through the industrial revolution w/o the formation of labor unions?

Remember Pa Ingalls and others drug their wives and kids out to brave the Indians instead of living in the city during the Industrial Revolution. A bit of that had to do with the reality of working conditions I suspect.
 
Interesting Post P.C.

I would quote you but ya type so darned much!

Wages and working conditions were the causes for the rise of unions.

Safety: It seems the government/society provides a good number of safety rules which unions fought for. Even non-union job sites seem to use acceptable safety rules. but man, I've worked for some scary scab small business type trucking companies where drivers put you at risk because they felt they could not complain. So I dunno. More dangerous the job the more I want it to be unionized? Stupid truck drivers all bragging about how they can skip the scales and fake log books. Stupid UNIONIZED train crews keeping ridiculous hours of service rules and falling asleep at the throttle.

Wages: We now have minimum wage laws so the government/society has taken up some of the slack. I am somewhat resigned to our fight with the 3rd world in this globalized economy, so I dunno.

Modern unions need to find a reason to exist. They could provide real drug tested employees (some do, the ones I know must have EASY tests). They could provide back up workers when someone is sick maybe? I don't know.

A reason I want to keep modern union machinery in place (damned mafia ties but oh well, gotta fight the Pinkertons), is the THREAT of unionization. Just like nuclear war is a deterrent so is the threat of unionization a deterrent from a business going too far.

Thanks for the good post PC.

Thank you, Toronado

I'd like to make this clear, as it isn't in the OP...

...I have no problems with unions, and, in fact, believe they are covered by 'freedom of assembly' in the Constitution.

I place the blame for over zealous demands in public service unions squarely on the shoulders of public officials who sign away the fisc.
 
...I have no problems with unions, and, in fact, believe they are covered by 'freedom of assembly' in the Constitution.

no no it took the Wagner Act and other extreme liberal measures to force private property owners to let unions stay on their property, to force owners to recognize and bargain with unions, to force them to respect picket lines, to not hire scabs etc etc.

And for what? So everyone could pay higher prices for union made junk, so our jobs would be shipped off shore, so people would get the liberal idea that violence was the way to get ahead?
 
I think unions and their membership are ptotected by teh Constitution. But I also think employers should have every right to tell their union employees to get lost. Free trade is free trade.

I dont know what problem unions solved. Maybe not enough free time for Saturday night. In the meantime unions have driven up wages for their own workers mainly by depressing wages for everyone else. And then they make their products uncompetitive and blame management when they are laid off.
But that's in the private sector. And probably why unions represent fewer PS workers now than ever. In the public sector it is different because no matter how high the cost or inefficient the gov't cannot go out of business. Nor are the employers paying the wages, the taxpayers are. So they dont really care how much it costs.
 
I think unions and their membership are ptotected by teh Constitution. But I also think employers should have every right to tell their union employees to get lost. Free trade is free trade.

I dont know what problem unions solved. Maybe not enough free time for Saturday night. In the meantime unions have driven up wages for their own workers mainly by depressing wages for everyone else. And then they make their products uncompetitive and blame management when they are laid off.
But that's in the private sector. And probably why unions represent fewer PS workers now than ever. In the public sector it is different because no matter how high the cost or inefficient the gov't cannot go out of business. Nor are the employers paying the wages, the taxpayers are. So they dont really care how much it costs.

You have to go back to the wild west/industrial revolution days to really understand the full implications of pure capitalism and thus get any respect of the need for unions, human nature and in fact much of our tax code. The railroad and the telegraph just made the world such a smaller place. In this modern OSHA/big brother loves you day unions have lost much of their point.
 
respect of the need for unions,

why would anyone respect unions ever?? They get higher wages through government violence while the rest of us get them by being worth more.

Imagine an entire economy where all prices are set with violence rather than in peaceful voluntary transactions?
 
respect of the need for unions,

why would anyone respect unions ever?? They get higher wages through government violence while the rest of us get them by being worth more.

Imagine an entire economy where all prices are set with violence rather than in peaceful voluntary transactions?

Somalia. Or MadMax.

Unions suck. Period. Union members are nothing more than semi-skilled welfare queens.
 
respect of the need for unions,

why would anyone respect unions ever?? They get higher wages through government violence while the rest of us get them by being worth more.

Imagine an entire economy where all prices are set with violence rather than in peaceful voluntary transactions?

Somalia. Or MadMax.

Unions suck. Period. Union members are nothing more than semi-skilled welfare queens.

or lazy beer bellies who demanded a posh middle class life for putting a bolt on a car for 8 hours a day!
 
respect of the need for unions,

why would anyone respect unions ever?? They get higher wages through government violence while the rest of us get them by being worth more.

Imagine an entire economy where all prices are set with violence rather than in peaceful voluntary transactions?

Somalia. Or MadMax.

Unions suck. Period. Union members are nothing more than semi-skilled welfare queens.

Unions have always been straight up criminal organizations.
 
why would anyone respect unions ever?? They get higher wages through government violence while the rest of us get them by being worth more.

Imagine an entire economy where all prices are set with violence rather than in peaceful voluntary transactions?

Somalia. Or MadMax.

Unions suck. Period. Union members are nothing more than semi-skilled welfare queens.

Unions have always been straight up criminal organizations.

yep some people respect peaceful economic transactions wherein both parties are free to participate or not, and some prefer violent liberal transactions.
 
Huh. Lets start with the violence issue.

Are you all familiar with the Pinkertons.

That was like 70-80 years ago, right?
How about today?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irc_C-K5PuA]Red Menace: Former Soviet Citizen vs. Postal Union Thug Who Condemns Capitalism, Praises Socialism - YouTube[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top