• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Goodbye Federal unions.

America was best when it's union membership was highest. Everything an American could want or need was proudly Made in America. Made in Japan was a euphemism for cheap junk.
Then southern states lured manufacturing with non-union right-to-work laws and it was just the first step on the road to Mexican maquiladora zones and child labour sweatshops in Sri Lanka.
And now American stores are full of cheap junk.
I will not disagree. First of, I was speaking of federal unions disappearing in this thread. When I was in the Steelworkers Union in the 70's after graduating HS, the union had actual Union Pride. The unions did not protect employees than needed to be let go like they do today. Again, that is my primary gripe about the unions I am aware of today.
 
Why would unions bother you?

A union's purpose is to monopolize the labor supply in a firm or industry, letting its members extort above market wages and benefits. The result is higher prices for consumers, less competitive businesses, and fewer opportunities for other workers. Everyone loses, except the union members.
 
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” - George Meany, President of AFL/CIO

"a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. "
-FDR

 
A union's purpose is to monopolize the labor supply in a firm or industry, letting its members extort above market wages and benefits. The result is higher prices for consumers, less competitive businesses, and fewer opportunities for other workers. Everyone loses, except the union members.
Simply horseshit. You know very little about how unions work and how this nation has prospered because of them. Btw, where did you get those radical "talking points"? "Zerohedge"...lol
You sound like the type of person that would be fine if we brought back "sweatshops" and put kids in factories instead of schools.
 
Instead of the CEO at his company making only 300 times as much as @Lord of Planar and the other suckers at his company, the CEO made only 290 times as much.

In other words....he did not adequately fulfill his peasant duty.
Both of the union haters on this thread are simply "clueless". They should stick to Trump worshipping. At least they know something about that.
 
My primary beef with unions, is protecting an employee that clearly needs to be removed.
By that do you mean that there is a process to make sure that someone is fired for cause?



I also disagree with the way they make pay scales
What about them?


I am not in favor of the civilian sector losing union protection. I just want things changed.
To what?


There should not be government employee unions though. Governments do not have a bottom line to maintain like employers do, and politicians do not care about what is reasonable.
Governments can be abusive employers. Shouldn’t that labor be able to protect itself from that abuse?
 
Both of the union haters on this thread are simply "clueless".

The main error you are making is thinking that what's best for "the worker" is what's best for the country. Ironically, this is what Trump believes as well.

Pro tip: Whenever you see the government protecting someone or some business from competition - it's bad for the country.
 
The main error you are making is thinking that what's best for "the worker" is what's best for the country. Ironically, this is what Trump believes as well.

Pro tip: Whenever you see the government protecting someone or some business from competition - it's bad for the country.
I completely understand your points, but some people do at times need protection from management. There never is a perfect solution.
 
By that do you mean that there is a process to make sure that someone is fired for cause?

Shouldn't need a "cause" to fire someone. You want the labor market to be as flexible as possible.

Governments can be abusive employers. Shouldn’t that labor be able to protect itself from that abuse?

Nobody here is stupid enough to believe that some cushy government do-nothing job is "abusive".
 
I’ve worked in manufacturing all of my life. I worked for a defense contractor that had a union and the union very much protected employees who did not preform anywhere near the standard that US taxpayers deserve.

My current employer also has a union. It it absolutely deserves the union because without it, they would be screwed over by the company. It’s a great union with great local representatives who care about both the success of the company and the wellbeing of their employees. And the union provides better insurance than the company provides to its non-bargaining unit members.

I’ve worked at three other manufacturers. All three treated employees with dignity and respect and treated them fairly. A union was not necessary. In fact, one of the employers with 1,400 hourly employees paid well above average and had a very low attrition rate. Several national unions tried to organize the employees but could never come close to getting enough support to even call for a vote.

I’ve worked on a lot of construction projects and I always appreciated working with union members in the skilled trades. If we needed additional workers it was as simple as calling the union and asking for the qualification we needed. The union guaranteed the skill level and workmanship of every person they provided.
 
By that do you mean that there is a process to make sure that someone is fired for cause?
Police unions protecting bad cops. I loath this.

There are processes, but too often it is more work for a supervisor to do all the paperwork correct, than it is to just let the union have its way. I think the union likes that is often take two incompetent people for one position, because they get more revenue that way.
Governments can be abusive employers. Shouldn’t that labor be able to protect itself from that abuse?
You did not understand my gripe about that. Did you? The politicians making policies with the union and contracts do not suffer the consequences of bad decisions.

PERS here in Oregon comes to mind Here is the search engine AI response:

Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) faces significant funding issues, primarily due to an unfunded actuarial liability that has grown to $24 billion, meaning the system owes far more in pension payments than it has in assets. Contributing factors include poor investment returns, reliance on private equity, and increasing contribution rates that strain public budgets without providing additional benefits to current employees or students.

Hers is an article on it:


This is not the whole of it. For decades, it has been known that the agreement cannot be maintained. At some point, there will be no money for future teachers. The PERS contract by union agreement will be a disaster, and the politicians signing off on it I bet got boatloads on money for their election campaigns.

Politicians can be bought unlike a corporate owner who has a bottom line.
 
Shouldn't need a "cause" to fire someone. You want the labor market to be as flexible as possible.
When Woodrow Wilson got rid of Black government employees for the benefit of White people…. Is that making the labor market “flexible”?

As I said… the government can be an abusive employer.


Nobody here is stupid enough to believe that some cushy government do-nothing job is "abusive".
Is being a nurse at the VA a cushy job? How about working in the Federal Prison system? Mail Carrier?

All of those cushy?
 
Police unions protecting bad cops. I loath this.
Everyone protects bad cops. The problem is systemic behind their labor rights.


There are processes, but too often it is more work for a supervisor to do all the paperwork correct, than it is to just let the union have its way.
That sounds like a lazy supervisor


I think the union likes that is often take two incompetent people for one position, because they get more revenue that way.
That is not how any of that works.


You did not understand my gripe about that. Did you? The politicians making policies with the union and contracts do not suffer the consequences of bad decisions.

PERS here in Oregon comes to kind Here is the serach engine AI response:

Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) faces significant funding issues, primarily due to an unfunded actuarial liability that has grown to $24 billion, meaning the system owes far more in pension payments than it has in assets. Contributing factors include poor investment returns, reliance on private equity, and increasing contribution rates that strain public budgets without providing additional benefits to current employees or students.
Hers is an article on it:

This is not the whole of it. For decades, it has been known that the agreement cannot be maintained. At some point, there will be no money for future teachers. The PERS contract by union agreement will be a disaster, and the politicians signing off on it I bet got boatloads on money for their election campaigns.

Politicians can be bought unlike a corporate owner who has a bottom line.
Why blame the workers for the government’s inability to uphold its contract?
 
The government can be just as terrible and abusive of an employer as the private sector.

Cheering on the erosion of labor rights is very weird.

The right has been well and truly indoctrinated into this idea that workers rights is a terrible idea and a slippery slope to full on communism.

They would bloody hate living in France where you get actual holidays and they have a law that says you can't be contacted by work while not on the job.
They're like bully victims who vote to make bullying ok and then act confused when they get the shit kicked out of them by the bully.
 
When Woodrow Wilson got rid of Black government employees for the benefit of White people…. Is that making the labor market “flexible”?

As I said… the government can be an abusive employer.

I agree that Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of the progressive movement, was a vile, racist, white-supremacist, prick. And yes, that is an example of government abuse. But that was over 100 years ago. How about something recent?

Is being a nurse at the VA a cushy job?

The average pay for a nurse in a VA hospital is over 100 grand.


How about working in the Federal Prison system? Mail Carrier?

Mail Carrier? Walking around putting junk mail into boxes is a job that could be done by a drunken child.

All of those cushy?

Yes.
 
My dad was a Teamster local business agent and officer in the 70s. His job was to prevent people who needed to fired to not be fired. Also, pull people out on strike. That was the culture.

I will not disagree. First of, I was speaking of federal unions disappearing in this thread. When I was in the Steelworkers Union in the 70's after graduating HS, the union had actual Union Pride. The unions did not protect employees than needed to be let go like they do today. Again, that is my primary gripe about the unions I am aware of today.
 
I thought we were making America great again. When America was great we had unions. My dad was IBEW then UAW. We had many unions and a strong middle class. The tax rate for the uberwealthy was much higher.

Now we're killing unions, dropping tax rates on corporations and capital gains, and cutting social services to pretend to pay for it.

You don't make America great again by destroying what made America great in the first place.
 
They would bloody hate living in France where you get actual holidays and they have a law that says you can't be contacted by work while not on the job.

No country protects workers better than France. Is France a rich country because of it? Nope. If France were a US state it would be ranked right at the bottom next to Mississippi.
 
I agree that Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of the progressive movement, was a vile, racist, white-supremacist, prick. And yes, that is an example of government abuse. But that was over 100 years ago. How about something recent?
Yeah. Wilson sucked.

Why do you need recent stuff? Unions exist because of employer abuse. Doesn’t matter how long ago it was.


Yeah. My niece is one.

It’s hard work.


Mail Carrier? Walking around putting junk mail into boxes is a job that could be done by a drunken child.
The lack of respect for people’s labor is the wildest part.
 
No country protects workers better than France. Is France a rich country because of it? Nope. If France were a US state it would be ranked right at the bottom next to Mississippi.

I think the French would rather be slightly less wealthy and have a decent work life balance.
You can work yourselves into an early grave for the extra money if you like.

I would hate to have a job in the US.
 
Why do you need recent stuff?

In other words, you don't have a single example of this "abuse" you claim exists.

Unions exist because of employer abuse.

Wrong. Unions started to prevent newly freed blacks from competing with white workers.

Here is black historian W.E.B. Du Bois in 1918:

I carry on the title page, for instance, of this magazine the Union label, and yet I know, and everyone of my Negro readers knows, that the very fact that this label is there is an advertisement that no Negro’s hand is engaged in the printing of this magazine, since the International Typographical Union systematically and deliberately excludes every Negro that it dares from membership, no matter what his qualifications.
 
Back
Top Bottom