American Unions

[22lcidw]

It is because they have to work more to even try to keep up with the standard of living from 30 to 40 years ago. Also if things are so much better now why are people $1,000,000,000,000 in credit card debt now. Far and away the most even by % of income at any other time in this country?

America's standard of living is greater today that it was 40 years ago. People have more cars, live in larger homes, eat out more, have much greater variety in our nation's supermarkets, Walmarts, and now on line.

Pretending as if America is in a long term decline, and further, its because of a decline in Big Labor is absurd.

In actuality, the decline in Big Labor has allowed new methods of retailing, new products and services that we never could have invented if most employers had to kiss the ass of a Union Goon to make changes.

But that's always been the case, in reality. The 1892 Steel Strike, example given. The Tremendous Industrialist Henry C. Frick was innovating and marketing steel for high rise construction and other new products. Steel at the time was cutting edge technology, the Western PA and Eastern Ohio were the "silicon valley" of their age. But to implement the changes in production to get steel in high enough quantities and low enough price for high rise constructions, Big Labor had to give him a free hand.

They didn't want to, so Mr. Frick had no alternative but to crush them like a bug.

Modern mythology is that Frick made money because he paid low wages for long hours in steel. Reality is that Frick was just as much of a bastard to the employees as any employer , including those that failed. Frick succeeded because he was the Bezos of his era.

People collecting checks in massive numbers while workers are making less in real numbers is the truth. What we have now is many older people providing a good time for their children and grandchildren. And that with all of those retiree checks provided by an artificially rised stock market and a tax paying public. Crippled Ken would become the pu**ie of America if a collapse happened.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

"Our"? Are you not from Europe? I am confused by this post, sir.

 

[Aldo Raine]

It is because they have to work more to even try to keep up with the standard of living from 30 to 40 years ago. Also if things are so much better now why are people $1,000,000,000,000 in credit card debt now. Far and away the most even by % of income at any other time in this country?

America's standard of living is greater today that it was 40 years ago. People have more cars, live in larger homes, eat out more, have much greater variety in our nation's supermarkets, Walmarts, and now on line.

Pretending as if America is in a long term decline, and further, its because of a decline in Big Labor is absurd.

In actuality, the decline in Big Labor has allowed new methods of retailing, new products and services that we never could have invented if most employers had to kiss the ass of a Union Goon to make changes.

But that's always been the case, in reality. The 1892 Steel Strike, example given. The Tremendous Industrialist Henry C. Frick was innovating and marketing steel for high rise construction and other new products. Steel at the time was cutting edge technology, the Western PA and Eastern Ohio were the "silicon valley" of their age. But to implement the changes in production to get steel in high enough quantities and low enough price for high rise constructions, Big Labor had to give him a free hand.

They didn't want to, so Mr. Frick had no alternative but to crush them like a bug.

Modern mythology is that Frick made money because he paid low wages for long hours in steel. Reality is that Frick was just as much of a bastard to the employees as any employer , including those that failed. Frick succeeded because he was the Bezos of his era.

Why are Americans more in debt now than ever? There are more cars and gadgets because there are more people. And far more debt as relative to income because the standard of living has dropped.

But no fear they have made credit much easier so you can keep buying more shit and go farther in debt. That's nice.

Credit is probably the reason we don’t save anymore. As soon as you get it, spend it.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

And it was made easy because they knew with the fact that incomes are at best stagnant but for the most part calling on average for the last 30 years. That was the only way we could continue to buy their shit!

 

[Aldo Raine]

Really, Europe is far more unionized than the US. But they are not apart of the rest of the world! It is sad that doesn't understand, I am sure see run to hold the bosses boss when he pees. Being the bone smuggler see have proven to be dailey on this board!

And America is a lot better off than Europe.

In the US, the Right To Work states have growing magnificently, and that's for two reasons IMHO. One, dealing with mobsters always increases the cost in you want to run a business. And two, the Republican defeat of Jim Crow in the 1960's made the South a lot more comfortable for outsiders to visit, and not having to comply with the special liberal social code that was awkward.

Are we, the avg work week in much of Europe is less than 40 hrs n health care costs are lower. Our mortality rate has been getting worse over the last several years and again most of Europes has nt.

There are many reasons for that, not just healthcare.

So ewe got nothing?

No, I have plenty. For instance we have a huge drug problem in this country. Besides the younger people who die from drugs, we have women who have babies using drugs which greatly decreases the survival rate for babies. Unlike some countries, if a baby in the US takes one breath, it’s considered a human life. Along with drugs comes the gang problems which lead to many murders.

Then there is the food problem. We are the most obese country in the world. Many people (particularly families) eat fast food several times a week. That leads to health problems and eventually death.

In the US, many of our women are working. In fact most college graduates are women who pursue careers. This leads to skipping prenatal care and often having babies at an older age. The older a woman is giving birth, the lower our infant mortality rate.

We also have more people driving than most anyplace else in the world, so we also have many more auto fatalities than other countries.

So when you add up all the circumstances we deal with, it’s not a surprise why our life expectancy rate is lower than other places.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Yet much of the rest of the world have these problems, yet in most nations with some form of universal health care their mortality rates are going the opposite direction! Now I do get that other nations do not have pharmaceutical companies trying to make junkies out of their people, but this is far deeper than this.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And America is a lot better off than Europe.

In the US, the Right To Work states have growing magnificently, and that's for two reasons IMHO. One, dealing with mobsters always increases the cost in you want to run a business. And two, the Republican defeat of Jim Crow in the 1960's made the South a lot more comfortable for outsiders to visit, and not having to comply with the special liberal social code that was awkward.

Are we, the avg work week in much of Europe is less than 40 hrs n health care costs are lower. Our mortality rate has been getting worse over the last several years and again most of Europes has nt.

There are many reasons for that, not just healthcare.

So ewe got nothing?

No, I have plenty. For instance we have a huge drug problem in this country. Besides the younger people who die from drugs, we have women who have babies using drugs which greatly decreases the survival rate for babies. Unlike some countries, if a baby in the US takes one breath, it’s considered a human life. Along with drugs comes the gang problems which lead to many murders.

Then there is the food problem. We are the most obese country in the world. Many people (particularly families) eat fast food several times a week. That leads to health problems and eventually death.

In the US, many of our women are working. In fact most college graduates are women who pursue careers. This leads to skipping prenatal care and often having babies at an older age. The older a woman is giving birth, the lower our infant mortality rate.

We also have more people driving than most anyplace else in the world, so we also have many more auto fatalities than other countries.

So when you add up all the circumstances we deal with, it’s not a surprise why our life expectancy rate is lower than other places.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Yet much of the rest of the world have these problems, yet in most nations with some form of universal health care their mortality rates are going the opposite direction! Now I do get that other nations do not have pharmaceutical companies trying to make junkies out of their people, but this is far deeper than this.

No, some countries have some of our problems, but not all the problems we have. Face it, we drive more, we use more narcotics, we eat more, we have more murders, we have the most women working. Nobody has all these problems that are in relation to life expectancy. And when you consider the fact that most of these problems effect younger people, it's not a wonder why our life expectancy is what it is.

Still, the majority of people in just about any country die when they are older because they develop health problems when they are older. So in that sense, most of our people die while on government healthcare namely Medicare.

 

[initforme]

Without Medicare nobody could reitre and millions upon millions would be bankrupt forcing them into poverty. Medicare goes away and a massive crisis is assured. It would have to happen. Women have been forced to work at wages are far behind prices...especially healthcare...which this nation hasnt figured out yet.

 

[sealybobo]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Lets see who Republicans agree with here. Do they agree with the auto companies or the auto workers?

Here's Why Thousands Of Autoworkers Could End Up On Strike Soon | HuffPost

Automakers are looking to cut labor costs relative to foreign competitors building cars and trucks inside the U.S. with lower-earning workers.

Several years of rising and near-record auto sales have made companies flush, but workers have not forgotten the sacrifices they made to stabilize the industry during the financial crisis, including by lowering the pay scale for new hires.

“It’s a different environment after four years of pretty successful operations. Workers are going to want to see money in their paychecks.”

both sides expect some of the biggest fights to revolve around the use of temporary workers inside the Big Three’s plants, as well as how long it takes newer employees to earn traditional wage rates.

The UAW’s contracts put caps on the number of temps the automakers can employ at a given time. The companies will probably want to expand their use in the name of “flexibility” ― i.e., filling vacancies or ramping up production on the cheap relative to permanent employees. The U.S. auto companies often point out the high share of temps at foreign competitors manufacturing in the U.S. South, such as Nissan, saying it puts them at a disadvantage.

In a statement to HuffPost on the negotiations, Ford said, “Our focus is reaching a fair agreement with the UAW that allows the company to be more competitive so we can continue to preserve and protect good-paying manufacturing jobs and maintain our track record of investing in our U.S. plants.”

While the union contracts cover temp workers, those workers do not enjoy the same wages, benefits or job security as their full-time counterparts. Union members ― even those who have permanent positions ― would see it in their own interest to limit the companies’ use of temps.

Another likely point of contention is how long it takes workers with less tenure to start earning the top pay of $29 per hour.

The automakers will almost certainly be looking to shift more of those costs onto employees through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

If the corporations win, will American workers be better off or worse off than they were under Obama? Obviously they'll be worse off. More temp workers, paying more for their healthcare, lower pay for new hires and it will take them longer to make it to the top $29 hr???

This is not making America great again.

 

[Polishprince]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Lets see who Republicans agree with here. Do they agree with the auto companies or the auto workers?

Here's Why Thousands Of Autoworkers Could End Up On Strike Soon | HuffPost

Automakers are looking to cut labor costs relative to foreign competitors building cars and trucks inside the U.S. with lower-earning workers.

Several years of rising and near-record auto sales have made companies flush, but workers have not forgotten the sacrifices they made to stabilize the industry during the financial crisis, including by lowering the pay scale for new hires.

“It’s a different environment after four years of pretty successful operations. Workers are going to want to see money in their paychecks.”

both sides expect some of the biggest fights to revolve around the use of temporary workers inside the Big Three’s plants, as well as how long it takes newer employees to earn traditional wage rates.

The UAW’s contracts put caps on the number of temps the automakers can employ at a given time. The companies will probably want to expand their use in the name of “flexibility” ― i.e., filling vacancies or ramping up production on the cheap relative to permanent employees. The U.S. auto companies often point out the high share of temps at foreign competitors manufacturing in the U.S. South, such as Nissan, saying it puts them at a disadvantage.

In a statement to HuffPost on the negotiations, Ford said, “Our focus is reaching a fair agreement with the UAW that allows the company to be more competitive so we can continue to preserve and protect good-paying manufacturing jobs and maintain our track record of investing in our U.S. plants.”

While the union contracts cover temp workers, those workers do not enjoy the same wages, benefits or job security as their full-time counterparts. Union members ― even those who have permanent positions ― would see it in their own interest to limit the companies’ use of temps.

Another likely point of contention is how long it takes workers with less tenure to start earning the top pay of $29 per hour.

The automakers will almost certainly be looking to shift more of those costs onto employees through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

If the corporations win, will American workers be better off or worse off than they were under Obama? Obviously they'll be worse off. More temp workers, paying more for their healthcare, lower pay for new hires and it will take them longer to make it to the top $29 hr???

This is not making America great again.

I don't think there will be a strike at all, and I'll tell you why. When the employees are on strike, they don't pay Union Dues. The union bosses can't earn money in grievances and arbitration when the employees aren't on the job.

The Unionized segment of the labor market in America is very tiny, only 1/12 the size of the Scab segment. I don't think anything that happens in the UAW really has much of an effect "american workers" as a whole.

 

[sealybobo]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Lets see who Republicans agree with here. Do they agree with the auto companies or the auto workers?

Here's Why Thousands Of Autoworkers Could End Up On Strike Soon | HuffPost

Automakers are looking to cut labor costs relative to foreign competitors building cars and trucks inside the U.S. with lower-earning workers.

Several years of rising and near-record auto sales have made companies flush, but workers have not forgotten the sacrifices they made to stabilize the industry during the financial crisis, including by lowering the pay scale for new hires.

“It’s a different environment after four years of pretty successful operations. Workers are going to want to see money in their paychecks.”

both sides expect some of the biggest fights to revolve around the use of temporary workers inside the Big Three’s plants, as well as how long it takes newer employees to earn traditional wage rates.

The UAW’s contracts put caps on the number of temps the automakers can employ at a given time. The companies will probably want to expand their use in the name of “flexibility” ― i.e., filling vacancies or ramping up production on the cheap relative to permanent employees. The U.S. auto companies often point out the high share of temps at foreign competitors manufacturing in the U.S. South, such as Nissan, saying it puts them at a disadvantage.

In a statement to HuffPost on the negotiations, Ford said, “Our focus is reaching a fair agreement with the UAW that allows the company to be more competitive so we can continue to preserve and protect good-paying manufacturing jobs and maintain our track record of investing in our U.S. plants.”

While the union contracts cover temp workers, those workers do not enjoy the same wages, benefits or job security as their full-time counterparts. Union members ― even those who have permanent positions ― would see it in their own interest to limit the companies’ use of temps.

Another likely point of contention is how long it takes workers with less tenure to start earning the top pay of $29 per hour.

The automakers will almost certainly be looking to shift more of those costs onto employees through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

If the corporations win, will American workers be better off or worse off than they were under Obama? Obviously they'll be worse off. More temp workers, paying more for their healthcare, lower pay for new hires and it will take them longer to make it to the top $29 hr???

This is not making America great again.

I don't think there will be a strike at all, and I'll tell you why. When the employees are on strike, they don't pay Union Dues. The union bosses can't earn money in grievances and arbitration when the employees aren't on the job.

The Unionized segment of the labor market in America is very tiny, only 1/12 the size of the Scab segment. I don't think anything that happens in the UAW really has much of an effect "american workers" as a whole.

It does. For example the only reason Nissan employees make as much as they do now is not by accident. It's just close enough to what the union workers get so that it's not worth organizing.

But you are correct the unions don't have a lot of power like they used to. Still they do keep wages up for all American workers.

My brother has to deal with unions in several countries. He's a VP of HR. Negotiating with the unions is a big part of what he does. Unions in every country still have a lot of power. I asked him what if there were no unions and he said as quick as he could, "workers would be screwed".

We already are. Just look at how the American middle class is doing today. Back when unions made up about 35% of the work force our wages were much higher. No coincidence as union membership has declined, so have wages.

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

We saw exactly this scenario played out in the US fifty years ago, when unions helped regulate entry into the workforce, 35 percent of American workers had a union job, and 70 percent of Americans could raise a family on a single, 40-hour-week paycheck.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Lets see who Republicans agree with here. Do they agree with the auto companies or the auto workers?

Here's Why Thousands Of Autoworkers Could End Up On Strike Soon | HuffPost

Automakers are looking to cut labor costs relative to foreign competitors building cars and trucks inside the U.S. with lower-earning workers.

Several years of rising and near-record auto sales have made companies flush, but workers have not forgotten the sacrifices they made to stabilize the industry during the financial crisis, including by lowering the pay scale for new hires.

“It’s a different environment after four years of pretty successful operations. Workers are going to want to see money in their paychecks.”

both sides expect some of the biggest fights to revolve around the use of temporary workers inside the Big Three’s plants, as well as how long it takes newer employees to earn traditional wage rates.

The UAW’s contracts put caps on the number of temps the automakers can employ at a given time. The companies will probably want to expand their use in the name of “flexibility” ― i.e., filling vacancies or ramping up production on the cheap relative to permanent employees. The U.S. auto companies often point out the high share of temps at foreign competitors manufacturing in the U.S. South, such as Nissan, saying it puts them at a disadvantage.

In a statement to HuffPost on the negotiations, Ford said, “Our focus is reaching a fair agreement with the UAW that allows the company to be more competitive so we can continue to preserve and protect good-paying manufacturing jobs and maintain our track record of investing in our U.S. plants.”

While the union contracts cover temp workers, those workers do not enjoy the same wages, benefits or job security as their full-time counterparts. Union members ― even those who have permanent positions ― would see it in their own interest to limit the companies’ use of temps.

Another likely point of contention is how long it takes workers with less tenure to start earning the top pay of $29 per hour.

The automakers will almost certainly be looking to shift more of those costs onto employees through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

If the corporations win, will American workers be better off or worse off than they were under Obama? Obviously they'll be worse off. More temp workers, paying more for their healthcare, lower pay for new hires and it will take them longer to make it to the top $29 hr???

This is not making America great again.

/----/ " with lower-earning workers. "
Translation = Non Union Workers. Seems the real problem is the Union Thugs that make the big three noncompetitive.

 

[sealybobo]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Lets see who Republicans agree with here. Do they agree with the auto companies or the auto workers?

Here's Why Thousands Of Autoworkers Could End Up On Strike Soon | HuffPost

Automakers are looking to cut labor costs relative to foreign competitors building cars and trucks inside the U.S. with lower-earning workers.

Several years of rising and near-record auto sales have made companies flush, but workers have not forgotten the sacrifices they made to stabilize the industry during the financial crisis, including by lowering the pay scale for new hires.

“It’s a different environment after four years of pretty successful operations. Workers are going to want to see money in their paychecks.”

both sides expect some of the biggest fights to revolve around the use of temporary workers inside the Big Three’s plants, as well as how long it takes newer employees to earn traditional wage rates.

The UAW’s contracts put caps on the number of temps the automakers can employ at a given time. The companies will probably want to expand their use in the name of “flexibility” ― i.e., filling vacancies or ramping up production on the cheap relative to permanent employees. The U.S. auto companies often point out the high share of temps at foreign competitors manufacturing in the U.S. South, such as Nissan, saying it puts them at a disadvantage.

In a statement to HuffPost on the negotiations, Ford said, “Our focus is reaching a fair agreement with the UAW that allows the company to be more competitive so we can continue to preserve and protect good-paying manufacturing jobs and maintain our track record of investing in our U.S. plants.”

While the union contracts cover temp workers, those workers do not enjoy the same wages, benefits or job security as their full-time counterparts. Union members ― even those who have permanent positions ― would see it in their own interest to limit the companies’ use of temps.

Another likely point of contention is how long it takes workers with less tenure to start earning the top pay of $29 per hour.

The automakers will almost certainly be looking to shift more of those costs onto employees through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

If the corporations win, will American workers be better off or worse off than they were under Obama? Obviously they'll be worse off. More temp workers, paying more for their healthcare, lower pay for new hires and it will take them longer to make it to the top $29 hr???

This is not making America great again.

/----/ " with lower-earning workers. "
Translation = Non Union Workers. Seems the real problem is the Union Thugs that make the big three noncompetitive.

The mean the workers who make a decent wage? You are correct. Hard to compete with Mexican workers. But that's exactly what the GOP wants to do to American workers. If we don't accept lower wages then the jobs go to Mexico. MAGA.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Lets see who Republicans agree with here. Do they agree with the auto companies or the auto workers?

Here's Why Thousands Of Autoworkers Could End Up On Strike Soon | HuffPost

Automakers are looking to cut labor costs relative to foreign competitors building cars and trucks inside the U.S. with lower-earning workers.

Several years of rising and near-record auto sales have made companies flush, but workers have not forgotten the sacrifices they made to stabilize the industry during the financial crisis, including by lowering the pay scale for new hires.

“It’s a different environment after four years of pretty successful operations. Workers are going to want to see money in their paychecks.”

both sides expect some of the biggest fights to revolve around the use of temporary workers inside the Big Three’s plants, as well as how long it takes newer employees to earn traditional wage rates.

The UAW’s contracts put caps on the number of temps the automakers can employ at a given time. The companies will probably want to expand their use in the name of “flexibility” ― i.e., filling vacancies or ramping up production on the cheap relative to permanent employees. The U.S. auto companies often point out the high share of temps at foreign competitors manufacturing in the U.S. South, such as Nissan, saying it puts them at a disadvantage.

In a statement to HuffPost on the negotiations, Ford said, “Our focus is reaching a fair agreement with the UAW that allows the company to be more competitive so we can continue to preserve and protect good-paying manufacturing jobs and maintain our track record of investing in our U.S. plants.”

While the union contracts cover temp workers, those workers do not enjoy the same wages, benefits or job security as their full-time counterparts. Union members ― even those who have permanent positions ― would see it in their own interest to limit the companies’ use of temps.

Another likely point of contention is how long it takes workers with less tenure to start earning the top pay of $29 per hour.

The automakers will almost certainly be looking to shift more of those costs onto employees through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

If the corporations win, will American workers be better off or worse off than they were under Obama? Obviously they'll be worse off. More temp workers, paying more for their healthcare, lower pay for new hires and it will take them longer to make it to the top $29 hr???

This is not making America great again.

/----/ " with lower-earning workers. "
Translation = Non Union Workers. Seems the real problem is the Union Thugs that make the big three noncompetitive.

The mean the workers who make a decent wage? You are correct. Hard to compete with Mexican workers. But that's exactly what the GOP wants to do to American workers. If we don't accept lower wages then the jobs go to Mexico. MAGA.

/-----/ Mexican workers??? You mean illegals sneaking into the US or Mexicans in Mexico working at the auto plants? Trump is against both of them. Welcome aboard.

 

[Polishprince]

It does. For example the only reason Nissan employees make as much as they do now is not by accident. It's just close enough to what the union workers get so that it's not worth organizing.

But you are correct the unions don't have a lot of power like they used to. Still they do keep wages up for all American workers.

My brother has to deal with unions in several countries. He's a VP of HR. Negotiating with the unions is a big part of what he does. Unions in every country still have a lot of power. I asked him what if there were no unions and he said as quick as he could, "workers would be screwed".

In the business of Retail Food, the employers who offer the most Tremendous wages are Trader Joe, Whole Foods and Costco.

Trader Joes and Whole Foods are strictly 100% pure Scab. And Costco is 90% Proudly non-union despite the praise they receive from B. Hussein O.

The idea that unions have any influence at all with employers they don't represent, is absurd

 

[sealybobo]

It does. For example the only reason Nissan employees make as much as they do now is not by accident. It's just close enough to what the union workers get so that it's not worth organizing.

But you are correct the unions don't have a lot of power like they used to. Still they do keep wages up for all American workers.

My brother has to deal with unions in several countries. He's a VP of HR. Negotiating with the unions is a big part of what he does. Unions in every country still have a lot of power. I asked him what if there were no unions and he said as quick as he could, "workers would be screwed".

In the business of Retail Food, the employers who offer the most Tremendous wages are Trader Joe, Whole Foods and Costco.

Trader Joes and Whole Foods are strictly 100% pure Scab. And Costco is 90% Proudly non-union despite the praise they receive from B. Hussein O.

The idea that unions have any influence at all with employers they don't represent, is absurd

Just because it's too hard for your right wing mind to grasp the fact that unions even bring Honda wages up, doesn't mean it's not true. What is absurd is your inability to understand basic concepts. I'm sorry if this is all too much for you to understand

Unions have a substantial impact on the compensation and work lives of both unionized and non-unionized workers. This report presents current data on unions’ effect on wages, fringe benefits, total compensation, pay inequality, and workplace protections.

Some of the conclusions are:

• Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
• Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.
• Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.
• The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.
• The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.
• Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.
• Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.
• Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays).

Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections.

 

[Polishprince]

It does. For example the only reason Nissan employees make as much as they do now is not by accident. It's just close enough to what the union workers get so that it's not worth organizing.

But you are correct the unions don't have a lot of power like they used to. Still they do keep wages up for all American workers.

My brother has to deal with unions in several countries. He's a VP of HR. Negotiating with the unions is a big part of what he does. Unions in every country still have a lot of power. I asked him what if there were no unions and he said as quick as he could, "workers would be screwed".

In the business of Retail Food, the employers who offer the most Tremendous wages are Trader Joe, Whole Foods and Costco.

Trader Joes and Whole Foods are strictly 100% pure Scab. And Costco is 90% Proudly non-union despite the praise they receive from B. Hussein O.

The idea that unions have any influence at all with employers they don't represent, is absurd

Just because it's too hard for your right wing mind to grasp the fact that unions even bring Honda wages up, doesn't mean it's not true. What is absurd is your inability to understand basic concepts. I'm sorry if this is all too much for you to understand

Unions have a substantial impact on the compensation and work lives of both unionized and non-unionized workers. This report presents current data on unions’ effect on wages, fringe benefits, total compensation, pay inequality, and workplace protections.

Some of the conclusions are:

• Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
• Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.
• Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.
• The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.
• The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.
• Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.
• Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.
• Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays).

Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections.

That's all a bunch of bullshit, sealy.

If the Big Labor racket was as good for the rank and file membership as it is pretended, they wouldn't have lost most of their membership over the years.

I've seen the business agents hired out of the nation's Italian clubs, strong-arming business people. I think the real reason they are failing is that its tougher to intimidate people nowadays, with the corporate ownership as you can remember when the Sopranos tried to unionize Starbucks..

 

[Correll]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Lets see who Republicans agree with here. Do they agree with the auto companies or the auto workers?

Here's Why Thousands Of Autoworkers Could End Up On Strike Soon | HuffPost

Automakers are looking to cut labor costs relative to foreign competitors building cars and trucks inside the U.S. with lower-earning workers.

Several years of rising and near-record auto sales have made companies flush, but workers have not forgotten the sacrifices they made to stabilize the industry during the financial crisis, including by lowering the pay scale for new hires.

“It’s a different environment after four years of pretty successful operations. Workers are going to want to see money in their paychecks.”

both sides expect some of the biggest fights to revolve around the use of temporary workers inside the Big Three’s plants, as well as how long it takes newer employees to earn traditional wage rates.

The UAW’s contracts put caps on the number of temps the automakers can employ at a given time. The companies will probably want to expand their use in the name of “flexibility” ― i.e., filling vacancies or ramping up production on the cheap relative to permanent employees. The U.S. auto companies often point out the high share of temps at foreign competitors manufacturing in the U.S. South, such as Nissan, saying it puts them at a disadvantage.

In a statement to HuffPost on the negotiations, Ford said, “Our focus is reaching a fair agreement with the UAW that allows the company to be more competitive so we can continue to preserve and protect good-paying manufacturing jobs and maintain our track record of investing in our U.S. plants.”

While the union contracts cover temp workers, those workers do not enjoy the same wages, benefits or job security as their full-time counterparts. Union members ― even those who have permanent positions ― would see it in their own interest to limit the companies’ use of temps.

Another likely point of contention is how long it takes workers with less tenure to start earning the top pay of $29 per hour.

The automakers will almost certainly be looking to shift more of those costs onto employees through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

If the corporations win, will American workers be better off or worse off than they were under Obama? Obviously they'll be worse off. More temp workers, paying more for their healthcare, lower pay for new hires and it will take them longer to make it to the top $29 hr???

This is not making America great again.

I'd like to see some comparison between the US labor costs and those of our Japanese and Germany and Korean and Chinese competitors.


They say they need this to be competitive. They need to make the case. Just saying it, is not enough.

 

[Blues Man]

Americans have been indoctrinated against labor solidarity by a bunch of arch-capitalists conflating labor organizing with communism.

unions have become more corrupt and are contributing to their own demise

 

[Crixus]

Why dont they stand beside their brothers who are being victimised by donny ?

If all public sector workers came out then the orange **** would cave in very quickly.

Because they (the union members) are the ones the democrats are wanting to replace with cheap slave labor from south of the border.

 

[Polishprince]

Americans have been indoctrinated against labor solidarity by a bunch of arch-capitalists conflating labor organizing with communism.

unions have become more corrupt and are contributing to their own demise

Its a different world than it was decades ago.

Big Labor used to be able to send a couple of thugs into a store and shake down the merchant and the employees to force them to accept unionism and pony up dues.

Nowadays, it just isn't that easy. Even if the union can intimidate the company like they did with VW in Chattanooga, the people just aren't going to accept it in an election. That's why the Left wants to go to "Card Check" and do away with representation elections.

 

[Blues Man]

Americans have been indoctrinated against labor solidarity by a bunch of arch-capitalists conflating labor organizing with communism.

unions have become more corrupt and are contributing to their own demise

Its a different world than it was decades ago.

Big Labor used to be able to send a couple of thugs into a store and shake down the merchant and the employees to force them to accept unionism and pony up dues.

Nowadays, it just isn't that easy. Even if the union can intimidate the company like they did with VW in Chattanooga, the people just aren't going to accept it in an election. That's why the Left wants to go to "Card Check" and do away with representation elections.

unions were born in corruption.

That's what strong arm tactic are

Now unions have to prove they are going to provide more value to employees than their employers do and unions are rea;izing that's much harder than intimidation and breaking a few arms to get people to join