An America Without Unions

[Artevelde]

if labor unions were so great they would start their own union run companies and not have to impose their fascist principles upon those who arent interested................

let them compete in the market and see how fast their backwards utopian fantasies get them....

It is not the role of unions to start or run companies. Some people are in favour of union participation in the management of enterprises but I'm not a big fan of this.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

80 percent of the businesses in this country are small businesses.........

if these worthless marxists dont want to work for big corporations ,

they can always find employment as civil servants, social workers and community organizers.....

 

[Cammmpbell]

Is the radical left completely ignorant or do they just parrot ignorant radicalism? Unions accomplished good things in the past and nobody is out to get rid of them even the Wisconsin governor. The systemic problem with unions is that they are often led by criminals who steal the union money and distribute it to crooked politicians. The membership votes for their leaders and there is little law-enforcement or government regulations can do. What sane people want to do is limit the unions power in municipal negotiations where taxpayer money is involved but the radical element turns violent. People can see what happens to unionized factories, they go bankrupt because the cost of union contracts including hidden lavish retirement benefits is sometimes more than the profit margin. Nobody wants to get rid of unions but something has to be done to balance their power.

do you not see a correlation between declining union membership and stagnant wage in the middle class?

Probably not

Republicans and Fox News use their own facts which seldom have anything to do with the real world.

 

[Big Fitz]

Is the radical left completely ignorant or do they just parrot ignorant radicalism? Unions accomplished good things in the past and nobody is out to get rid of them even the Wisconsin governor. The systemic problem with unions is that they are often led by criminals who steal the union money and distribute it to crooked politicians. The membership votes for their leaders and there is little law-enforcement or government regulations can do. What sane people want to do is limit the unions power in municipal negotiations where taxpayer money is involved but the radical element turns violent. People can see what happens to unionized factories, they go bankrupt because the cost of union contracts including hidden lavish retirement benefits is sometimes more than the profit margin. Nobody wants to get rid of unions but something has to be done to balance their power.

do you not see a correlation between declining union membership and stagnant wage in the middle class?

Probably not

Republicans and Fox News use their own facts which seldom have anything to do with the real world.

Really? That's your response?

You may go now Commiebell. You've nothing of worth to say here. Waste your time elsewhere with those who share your delusions.

 

[Artevelde]

hey, it's you lefties making the connection of Unions to freedom, while they engage in hostile tactics towards the public AND industry. Unions have been around for 5 centuries, give or take. They were protagonists of trade protectionism, keeping people from prospering by working for themselves, increasing the cost of labor making fewer jobs available to the public, closing shops to industries to prevent their inevitable weakening, and dozens of other problematic 'improvements' for the sake of a small select group of members over the public good.

I don't care if you're "impressed". You're too used to people trying to be it seems, and I don't see any evidence you know more than jolly ****-all here. You've declined to show how either I, or anyone else is wrong, preferring to raise strawmen, false choices and pretend your self-annointed authority means diddly here.

Now you're saying that unions are important post slavery? I think you need to elaborate why if you want to have any chance at credibility here. To me this smacks of the idea that unions were used to create a NEW slave class. Oh it's not so obvious as loss of freedom and working for free till you die. No. But enslaved to a power structure and locked into choices only the unions would allow. History seems to show this is really the goal of it.

The Steamboat Pilot Union of the mid 1800's broke the back of independent operators on the Mississippi, by forcing all pilots to be in the union and all riverboats to have them on. The profession went quickly from one of honor and respect to one of near enslavement to one's boat and post compared to the way it used to be. They made improvements to how to operate a boat, and then refused to share with the public, locking their charts crossing methods, and logs up from anyone but members, endangering the lives of tens of thousands who utilized the river. Why? To protect themselves and gain control of a large pot of money found in river trade.

Of course, that union met it's destruction at the hands of new technology: The railroads.

I'm putting up information. You actually have something other than floppy strawmen ready for the torch? Or you gonna run to the faculty lounge?

I'm actually not at all left-leaning in my politics. If anything, I'm a Conservative (in the European sense), but that doesn't get in the way of respect for historical facts and sound reasoning.

Your claim that unions are around for 5 centuries (some 2 centuries before the onset of the industrial revolution) can only make historians smile. You confuse labor unions with trade guilds and associations.

I seriously doubt if you ever read one seious book about the matter or whether you even know anything about the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor or the CIO or the IWW. You provide no facts, only empty bluster.

 

[Big Fitz]

hey, it's you lefties making the connection of Unions to freedom, while they engage in hostile tactics towards the public AND industry. Unions have been around for 5 centuries, give or take. They were protagonists of trade protectionism, keeping people from prospering by working for themselves, increasing the cost of labor making fewer jobs available to the public, closing shops to industries to prevent their inevitable weakening, and dozens of other problematic 'improvements' for the sake of a small select group of members over the public good.

I don't care if you're "impressed". You're too used to people trying to be it seems, and I don't see any evidence you know more than jolly ****-all here. You've declined to show how either I, or anyone else is wrong, preferring to raise strawmen, false choices and pretend your self-annointed authority means diddly here.

Now you're saying that unions are important post slavery? I think you need to elaborate why if you want to have any chance at credibility here. To me this smacks of the idea that unions were used to create a NEW slave class. Oh it's not so obvious as loss of freedom and working for free till you die. No. But enslaved to a power structure and locked into choices only the unions would allow. History seems to show this is really the goal of it.

The Steamboat Pilot Union of the mid 1800's broke the back of independent operators on the Mississippi, by forcing all pilots to be in the union and all riverboats to have them on. The profession went quickly from one of honor and respect to one of near enslavement to one's boat and post compared to the way it used to be. They made improvements to how to operate a boat, and then refused to share with the public, locking their charts crossing methods, and logs up from anyone but members, endangering the lives of tens of thousands who utilized the river. Why? To protect themselves and gain control of a large pot of money found in river trade.

Of course, that union met it's destruction at the hands of new technology: The railroads.

I'm putting up information. You actually have something other than floppy strawmen ready for the torch? Or you gonna run to the faculty lounge?

I'm actually not at all left-leaning in my politics. If anything, I'm a Conservative (in the European sense), but that doesn't get in the way of respect for historical facts and sound reasoning.

Your claim that unions are around for 5 centuries (some 2 centuries before the onset of the industrial revolution) can only make historians smile. You confuse labor unions with trade guilds and associations.

I seriously doubt if you ever read one seious book about the matter or whether you even know anything about the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor or the CIO or the IWW. You provide no facts, only empty bluster.

Trade associations and guilds are early, not modern form unions.

I see none from you other than appeals for authority.

 

[Artevelde]

[Trade associations and guilds are early, not modern form unions.

I see none from you other than appeals for authority.

You really should do something about your English. It's a beautiful language when used properly.

Anybody who sees unions in the 16th century is a bit nuts. Try to read some serious historical literature. I can recommend Mansel Blackford or K. Austin Kerr. Martin Sklar is a bit too leftist for my taste.

 

[Cammmpbell]

do you not see a correlation between declining union membership and stagnant wage in the middle class?

Probably not

Republicans and Fox News use their own facts which seldom have anything to do with the real world.

Really? That's your response?

You may go now Commiebell. You've nothing of worth to say here. Waste your time elsewhere with those who share your delusions.

You wouldn't know the truth if it struck you in the ass. They'll ban me before I stop posting. I've been banned from higher class places than this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, at least that's one thing we have in common: I'm very unimpressed

By the way: unions became important in the US after slavery was abolished. Unions have nothing to do with slavery and everything with industrial relations.

And in the field of industrial relations unions played every bit as important a rol in the US as in Britain (the big difference lies in the party political role of the unions in Britain which was largely absent in the US).

hey, it's you lefties making the connection of Unions to freedom, while they engage in hostile tactics towards the public AND industry...

Lefties/Democrats associate unions with political power.
They defend/justify the unions because for their collapse means a loss of that power.

If you believe that the left/Dems see the unions and their memebership as anything other than a maans to their partsisan political ends, you're either purposely dishonest, grossly unaware or deluding yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you are confusing cause and effect. Union membership in the US has been dwindling for decades, irrespective of the economic fortunes of the US.

I think you're ignoring my posts and talking past them so you can make an unrelated point.

 

[Artevelde]

I think you are confusing cause and effect. Union membership in the US has been dwindling for decades, irrespective of the economic fortunes of the US.

I think you're ignoring my posts and talking past them so you can make an unrelated point.

Not really. I'm trying to bring across that there are broader issues. Too bad you seem to consider unions to be the center of the economic universe.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

See this is what libs always try to do. Go to the extremes in order to save the current system. They also toss up a red herring with the justifying the public sector union, by placing arguments for the private sector.

First, I want to say Private sectors have their place. However, public sectors should be disband. Although private sectors have their place, there power should be limited!

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly means you can never actually disband a union using legal methods, be it private or public sector. Period.

After that, the extent of protection a Union worker has while on strike should be up for debate in both private and public matters.

I think laws limiting what can be negotiated are just silly. The government can pass a law saying that a Teacher's Union can't negotiate coaching assignments, for example, but if the teacher's go on strike and refuse to return to work until the State addresses coaching assignments, it doesn't matter what laws are on the books ultimately.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you are confusing cause and effect. Union membership in the US has been dwindling for decades, irrespective of the economic fortunes of the US.

I think you're ignoring my posts and talking past them so you can make an unrelated point.

Not really. I'm trying to bring across that there are broader issues. Too bad you seem to consider unions to be the center of the economic universe.

Interesting assertion, given that my post speaks to no such thing.
Thank you for proving my suspicion. Please feel free to get back to me when you are willing/able to address what I actually say.

 

[Big Fitz]

Bullshit. You've just witnessed what companies will do when the banks melted down in 2008. Any company, unregulated will continue one small piece at a time until people are working in unsafe conditions for a pittance. It couldn't be more clear. The Greed of companies knows no bounds. I'm surprised you haven't noticed the $1000 shower curtains, the $9000 umbrella stands, the millions of dollars worth of precious art on their walls, multi million dollar yachts, the use of corporate jets as if they belonged to them, etc. These are the pricks who run companies and bottom line profits and dividends to their shareholders and their only real supervision, their self appointed boards of directors are responsible for corporate greed and having seen what they did in the 30's I hope they are never totally uncurtailed and unregulated again during the future of our great republic.

Unions are the only thing keeping companies from unbridled cutting of workers benefits and the consequences. Unions are the only regulation concerning employees and their destiny and when the Apple company moved 80% of it's employees to China paying starvation wages for 12 hour shifts, some employees even living on the premises to cut transportation costs, while enjoying a spiral up of it's sales and stock value and a third or less of it's employees located in the U S.......This is 2012 not 1930.

WHAT MORE DOES ONE NEED TO SEE

At least they do it with profits. The Fed does it on our backs and china's, which again is on our backs.
**** china.

Bush, Bernanke and Paulson gave the failing banks nearly $800 billion of taxpayer's money to keep them solvent. Real Capitalism In Action. **** Them!!

Strange the Republicans call the president a socialist. They jump in and spend a hundred times what a year's welfare costs and give it to the banks with no strings attached. They weren't even told they had to loan the money. I guess socialism is OK as long as the give-a-way is going to companies or the wealthy:

Irrelevancy alert.

 

[Big Fitz]

[Trade associations and guilds are early, not modern form unions.

I see none from you other than appeals for authority.

You really should do something about your English. It's a beautiful language when used properly.

Anybody who sees unions in the 16th century is a bit nuts. Try to read some serious historical literature. I can recommend Mansel Blackford or K. Austin Kerr. Martin Sklar is a bit too leftist for my taste.

So now we teach English as well?

Never heard of conversational parlance and style I see. And still running away from even the basis of this discussion. I've laid down my premise, unions are NOT required for social change in labor. Changes can come without them and have given a few examples also of how labor unions harm the public and workers they claim to protect.

All I've seen is you corking out juices and claim to be an authority without any proof, or backing up for your viewpoint. Must suck when people don't knuckle under with your claims of position or authority, plus show an inability to back up your claims. Can I recommend you put up or shut up? Can you say anything in your own words or do you have to plead to other authorities to save you

I'll be impressed if you can do any of that.

Plus, since your nationality is clearly in doubt, I'll give a miss on your authority on the English language, the ability to write it OR style and grammar on the Internet.

Find some plebe to worship you, I will only deride you till I see reason to change that view. I see MikeK is volunteering.

 

[Sallow]

At least they do it with profits. The Fed does it on our backs and china's, which again is on our backs.
**** china.

Bush, Bernanke and Paulson gave the failing banks nearly $800 billion of taxpayer's money to keep them solvent. Real Capitalism In Action. **** Them!!

Strange the Republicans call the president a socialist. They jump in and spend a hundred times what a year's welfare costs and give it to the banks with no strings attached. They weren't even told they had to loan the money. I guess socialism is OK as long as the give-a-way is going to companies or the wealthy:

Irrelevancy alert.

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

 

[Sallow]

[Trade associations and guilds are early, not modern form unions.

I see none from you other than appeals for authority.

You really should do something about your English. It's a beautiful language when used properly.

Anybody who sees unions in the 16th century is a bit nuts. Try to read some serious historical literature. I can recommend Mansel Blackford or K. Austin Kerr. Martin Sklar is a bit too leftist for my taste.

So now we teach English as well?

Never heard of conversational parlance and style I see. And still running away from even the basis of this discussion. I've laid down my premise, unions are NOT required for social change in labor. Changes can come without them and have given a few examples also of how labor unions harm the public and workers they claim to protect.

All I've seen is you corking out juices and claim to be an authority without any proof, or backing up for your viewpoint. Must suck when people don't knuckle under with your claims of position or authority, plus show an inability to back up your claims. Can I recommend you put up or shut up? Can you say anything in your own words or do you have to plead to other authorities to save you

I'll be impressed if you can do any of that.

Plus, since your nationality is clearly in doubt, I'll give a miss on your authority on the English language, the ability to write it OR style and grammar on the Internet.

Find some plebe to worship you, I will only deride you till I see reason to change that view. I see MikeK is volunteering.

What sort of change of you referring too?

Social mobility? Then yeah..you probably see more of it going on in countries that have Unions. Countries without Unions? There's little or none.

 

[Big Fitz]

Bush, Bernanke and Paulson gave the failing banks nearly $800 billion of taxpayer's money to keep them solvent. Real Capitalism In Action. **** Them!!

Strange the Republicans call the president a socialist. They jump in and spend a hundred times what a year's welfare costs and give it to the banks with no strings attached. They weren't even told they had to loan the money. I guess socialism is OK as long as the give-a-way is going to companies or the wealthy:

Irrelevancy alert.

Irrelevant in what way?

Exactly.

Unions are not the bulwark against income equality and income equality is a non issue, just like Anthropogenic CO2 to climate change.

Of course, just like the Chicken Littles, the priests of economic 'justice' is a religion.

 

[Big Fitz]

You really should do something about your English. It's a beautiful language when used properly.

Anybody who sees unions in the 16th century is a bit nuts. Try to read some serious historical literature. I can recommend Mansel Blackford or K. Austin Kerr. Martin Sklar is a bit too leftist for my taste.

So now we teach English as well?

Never heard of conversational parlance and style I see. And still running away from even the basis of this discussion. I've laid down my premise, unions are NOT required for social change in labor. Changes can come without them and have given a few examples also of how labor unions harm the public and workers they claim to protect.

All I've seen is you corking out juices and claim to be an authority without any proof, or backing up for your viewpoint. Must suck when people don't knuckle under with your claims of position or authority, plus show an inability to back up your claims. Can I recommend you put up or shut up? Can you say anything in your own words or do you have to plead to other authorities to save you

I'll be impressed if you can do any of that.

Plus, since your nationality is clearly in doubt, I'll give a miss on your authority on the English language, the ability to write it OR style and grammar on the Internet.

Find some plebe to worship you, I will only deride you till I see reason to change that view. I see MikeK is volunteering.

What sort of change of you referring too?

Social mobility? Then yeah..you probably see more of it going on in countries that have Unions. Countries without Unions? There's little or none.

read the rest of the thread. Should be clear after a little while.

 

[Sallow]

if labor unions were so great they would start their own union run companies and not have to impose their fascist principles upon those who arent interested................

let them compete in the market and see how fast their backwards utopian fantasies get them....

Unions are not fascist. Quite the opposite. Corporations love fascist governments. They generally provide cheap labor with no power to them.