To Organize or Not to Organize

[DGS49]

President Biden and his minions take every opportunity to promote "high-paying UNION jobs"(!).

But is this appropriate?

In most cases the question of whether the employees of an employer should organize into a union and engage in collective bargaining is an adversarial one. The employees often wish to organize, and the employer invariably wants to avoid dealing with a union. Who is the President to intervene or advocate for the "union side" of the discussion? It is grossly inappropriate. If there were a large nationwide strike say, of the Teamsters, and the President said that the management group should give into the Unions demands, he would be excoriated. It's none of his business.

Let's look at it the other way: if a Republican President spoke out in favor of one of the "transplant" car makers and said the employees should vote against the UAW, the President would be figuratively tarred and feathered in the Media for inappropriately meddling in commercial affairs that are none of his business...and they would be right to do that.

And lest we not forget, unions are a SOCIALIST institution, and unions represent fewer than TEN PERCENT of the private sector work force in the U.S. Without Government putting its figurative thumb on the scales for unions through public sector unions and perverse laws like the Davis Bacon Act, the percentage would be even lower than that.

Like a lot of things in this country, there are two sides to the union story. THey can sing their song about taking care of employees with high wages and good benefits, but it is no coincidence that most of the companies that were dominated by unions 50 years ago are either out of business, offshore, or operating quite differently today, with much less union influence.

Shouldn't the President stay out of this issue/

 

[BULLDOG]

You seem to forget that union membership was much higher until Reagan put his thumb on the scale, and started his all out campaign to kill the unions. He was quite successful, and the living standard of countless union members fell in a short period of time.

 

[occupied]

Democratic presidents have typically took the side of workers. Some have even went so far as dispatch the Guard to protect strikers. Our industrial base was sent to China as a series of Neocon assholes finally found a way to break the power of Labor by not moving to protect a single American job. Was it worth it? Unions are now weak shadows of their former selves and an upwardly mobile working class is a thing of the past.

 

[Votto]

President Biden and his minions take every opportunity to promote "high-paying UNION jobs"(!).

But is this appropriate?

In most cases the question of whether the employees of an employer should organize into a union and engage in collective bargaining is an adversarial one. The employees often wish to organize, and the employer invariably wants to avoid dealing with a union. Who is the President to intervene or advocate for the "union side" of the discussion? It is grossly inappropriate. If there were a large nationwide strike say, of the Teamsters, and the President said that the management group should give into the Unions demands, he would be excoriated. It's none of his business.

Let's look at it the other way: if a Republican President spoke out in favor of one of the "transplant" car makers and said the employees should vote against the UAW, the President would be figuratively tarred and feathered in the Media for inappropriately meddling in commercial affairs that are none of his business...and they would be right to do that.

And lest we not forget, unions are a SOCIALIST institution, and unions represent fewer than TEN PERCENT of the private sector work force in the U.S. Without Government putting its figurative thumb on the scales for unions through public sector unions and perverse laws like the Davis Bacon Act, the percentage would be even lower than that.

Like a lot of things in this country, there are two sides to the union story. THey can sing their song about taking care of employees with high wages and good benefits, but it is no coincidence that most of the companies that were dominated by unions 50 years ago are either out of business, offshore, or operating quite differently today, with much less union influence.

Shouldn't the President stay out of this issue/

Democrats can do no wrong.

Ever.

Now go vote democrat or get cancelled.

 

[DGS49]

My point is that being "pro-union" is not necessarily beneficial to the workers, as recent history proves.

Consider two major American industries: autos and steel.

When all three of the Big Three were bankrupt a few years ago (Ford was also technically bankrupt, but did not file), there was a thriving American auto industry, entirely non-union, making Honda's, Toyota's, Nissan's, etc. And the only difference was that the failing industry was all organized and the thriving industry was all non-union.

A similar situation exists in the steel industry. The "integrated steel producers," USX, Armco, Inland, Bethlehem, J&L, Arcelor-Mittal, etc., are all organized and all struggling. The mini-mills, however (companies that produce steel from scrap, basically) like Nucor are non-union, and have been fine.

So as I said above, pro-union is not necessarily pro-worker.

Reagan did nothing to make it intrinsically more difficult to organize. The process is the same as always. It is just more difficult because workers are sophisticated enough to see that the empty promises of the unions are based on little more than the union wanting more dues.

The vast majority of union organization drives are in NON-COMPETITIVE situations, like utilities, hospitals, and public sector organizations.

 

[presonorek]

You seem to forget that union membership was much higher until Reagan put his thumb on the scale, and started his all out campaign to kill the unions. He was quite successful, and the living standard of countless union members fell in a short period of time.

Was that good or bad?

 

[Polishprince]

You seem to forget that union membership was much higher until Reagan put his thumb on the scale, and started his all out campaign to kill the unions. He was quite successful, and the living standard of countless union members fell in a short period of time.

Big Labor reached its peak in the early 1950's- long before Ronald Reagan entered politics.

it continued to decline during Reagan, as well as Clinton and Obama. I think you are giving him too much credit.

 

[Polishprince]

One of the big problems with unions is that major corporations aren't nearly as intimidated by them like Mom and Pop were.

Its the separation that they maintain which helps eliminate influence, as Manager Dan explains to Patsy and Burt who are trying organize Starbucks.

 

[BULLDOG]

You seem to forget that union membership was much higher until Reagan put his thumb on the scale, and started his all out campaign to kill the unions. He was quite successful, and the living standard of countless union members fell in a short period of time.

Was that good or bad?

I lost everything I had worked for. I'm gonna call that bad.

 

[BULLDOG]

You seem to forget that union membership was much higher until Reagan put his thumb on the scale, and started his all out campaign to kill the unions. He was quite successful, and the living standard of countless union members fell in a short period of time.

Big Labor reached its peak in the early 1950's- long before Ronald Reagan entered politics.

it continued to decline during Reagan, as well as Clinton and Obama. I think you are giving him too much credit.

You weren't working construction during Reagan's term, were you?

 

[Silent Warrior]

I vividly remember my short term as a union member. The site union rep was constantly on me to slow down to help my "union brothers" out. He kept explaining if everyone were to work to the best of their ability the company wouldn't have to hire as many workers and the union would lose clout. That short term job was very instrumental in helping me to decide to further my education and leave the unions far behind. When I ran my own company it was non-union and stayed that way.