What are your thoughts on unions?

[What if...?]

Unions are the reason why we have pro-worker labor laws in the first place. It all had to be won through popular worker protest and non-violent resistance.

So... they are ultimately a good thing, and needed for keeping checks and balances on the power.

The problem is when union governance becomes its own kind of oppressor because they have too much power yet not enough worker involvement.

Workers need to stay actively involved in union affairs, even peripherally, for unions to succeed.

The reason is that power concentrated in the hands of the few, in ANY form - unions, government, corporations, nonprofits, etc. - will eventually become corrupted, even if it starts out beneficial.

The solution is not to do away with unions, but to return them to their original power structure, which is collectivized.

Another aspect that I see in mine is an example of an old saying.

“The more you fight against an enemy, the more like that enemy you become.”

 

[Individual]

And which may not be fine? In macro then. And why?

That could only be answered by members of such unions.

 

[Grand Mal]

Unions= lazy and dumbed down( no incentive) work force. Fire em all

America was best when its union membership was highest. Back in those days anything an American could want or need was Made in America. Top quality stuff, too. Made in Japan was a euphemism for cheap junk.
What happened was companies started moving south to right-to-work states and they just kept moving, first to maquiladora zones in Mexico and then to Thailand or Sri Lanka or China. Now those jobs have gone, boys, and they ain't coming back and everything in Walmart was made somewhere else and its all cheap junk.
Ain't non-union grand?

 

[jpevans]

Why do I always read: What are your thoughts on onions?

Onions make me sad.

 

[Northern Light]

Another aspect that I see in mine is an example of an old saying.

“The more you fight against an enemy, the more like that enemy you become.”

That may be true, but I don't think there is any valid excuse to do away with unions on the whole, besides outright takeover by the owners of industry. All of the intricate little arguments people come up with for why unions are bad have really been given a lot of steam by industry owners who are salivating at the opportunity to get rid of them.

There's nobody alive today who has any memory of what it was like before worker rights existed. People toiled in the dirt for pennies, got injured and killed, and even their children were fair game.

 

[BirdinHand]

That may be true, but I don't think there is any valid excuse to do away with unions on the whole, besides outright takeover by the owners of industry. All of the intricate little arguments people come up with for why unions are bad have really been given a lot of steam by industry owners who are salivating at the opportunity to get rid of them.

There's nobody alive today who has any memory of what it was like before worker rights existed. People toiled in the dirt for pennies, got injured and killed, and even their children were fair game.

Anyone that is the descendent of an Irish coal miner hasn’t forgotten.

Anyone that had a family member that was a breaker boy, or had family that shopped at the company store…hasn’t forgotten.

My grandfathers were both in the mines.

This isn’t a far ago history.



Labor unions in private industry are one thing.
Public labor unions are an entirely other animal.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Overall, people's thoughts on unions tend to depend on where they lie on the political spectrum. Those on the right tend to be skeptical since they take capital from business owners (or taxpayers in the case of public unions) which could have gone back into the business, benefitting society. On the other hand, the left tackles it from the point of view that the economy needs to benefit everyone, making unions useful if not necessary.

But there is a potential middle ground which, in my opinion, receives too little attention.

This article suggests that private unions are fine while public unions are cringe

https://californiapolicycenter.org/the-ideology-of-public-sector-unions-vs-private-sector-unions/

There are main two reasons for this:

1. Unionization does not change the fact that the business must compete with others (barring private monopolies). Therefore, private unions cannot go to far, lest they put their host companies out of business. Although union members don't have a direct stake in the business's success (since they don't own a stake to the business), the workers will be out of a job if the business goes bankrupt or if there are layoffs. By contrast, bureaucracies do not compete, removing the limitation on what public sector unions can achieve.
2. Although private sector unions conflict with capitalist owners over how to distribute the spoils, union members, like business owners, benefit when the respective business is doing better. Public sector members also benefit from increased revenue to its host which is a government agency at the federal, state, or local level. The difference comes down to the fact that public sector unions benefit from an increase in government.

There's also a third about how teacher unions teach students to hate America but I'm not gonna get into the culture war.

You don't have to trust the article but it does bring forth a middle ground that I think it worth consideration, even if not adoption.

I think in the beginning of their existence in the sweat shop era, they were a positive. Today however they are corrupt self serving and too embedded in national politics.

 

[RF667799]

America was best when its union membership was highest. Back in those days anything an American could want or need was Made in America. Top quality stuff, too. Made in Japan was a euphemism for cheap junk.
What happened was companies started moving south to right-to-work states and they just kept moving, first to maquiladora zones in Mexico and then to Thailand or Sri Lanka or China. Now those jobs have gone, boys, and they ain't coming back and everything in Walmart was made somewhere else and its all cheap junk.
Ain't non-union grand?

My grandmother told how my grandfather- a staunch union supporter and union organizer as well- made her return some clothes item (underwear I think) back to the store because they didn't bear the "Union Made" label.

 

[What if...?]

That may be true, but I don't think there is any valid excuse to do away with unions on the whole, besides outright takeover by the owners of industry. All of the intricate little arguments people come up with for why unions are bad have really been given a lot of steam by industry owners who are salivating at the opportunity to get rid of them.

There's nobody alive today who has any memory of what it was like before worker rights existed. People toiled in the dirt for pennies, got injured and killed, and even their children were fair game.

Oh, I’m not bashing unions. Just mentioning a problem I see with mine.

I do not hesitate to remind the higher ups of what I just said. They don’t like it but they don’t argue either.

 

[What if...?]

I think in the beginning of their existence in the sweat shop era, they were a positive. Today however they are corrupt self serving and too embedded in national politics.

Do you care how much businesses are embedded in national politics?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Nickyjo]

Because of human nature, unions are a must.

Without unions, management will naturally take advantage of workers.

And, yes, some (many?) unions become corrupt, with the union leaders forgetting that they are the "servants" of their members.

But since human beings are such dreadful creatures, there is no alternative to unions.

Agreed. Years ago I used to investigate complaints of race and sex discrimination in employment. At times I had to tell complainants that tho they were treated unfairly by any standard, it wasn’t illegal discrimination. Often when I asked about a union, I was told “we voted against it.” Conclusion: no one needs a union until they need one. A shop steward could solve problems in hours or days. File a discrimination or other complaint with a government agency like I worked at, and it could be 6-12 months before I showed up.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Do you care how much businesses are embedded in national politics?

Businesses at least do not deduct from their employees wages to support one party or the other. The big labor unions do.

 

[What if...?]

Businesses at least do not deduct from their employees wages to support one party or the other. The big labor unions do.

Don’t they though? Where does the money they use to buy tax cuts and favorable legislation come from?

It certainly doesn’t come out of their compensation.

 

[noonereal]

That could only be answered by members of such unions.

This is a non-answer. Silly.

 

[Nickyjo]

Businesses at least do not deduct from their employees wages to support one party or the other. The big labor unions do.

Businesses use wealth obtained from their employees work to support one party or the other. A union member can complain and vote against what a union does with dues. Can an employee grumble about which party the boss contributed to?

 

[Loulit01]

The companies hired goons (Pinkertons) to beat up Protesting Union Members, Unions formed connections with Organized Crime to fight back. It didn't work out so well in the long run. But Unions fought & got their heads busted for the rights workers today take for granted. The Country is (or has) returning to a Golden Age, when a small number of wealthy Owners control most of the wealth. The era that the right wants to return to, was the heyday of Unions, when the American worker was king. Yet the will fight against Unionism.

I think you might mean Gilded Age, not Golden Age.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Don’t they though? Where does the money they use to buy tax cuts and favorable legislation come from?

Projection on your part. or are you buying policy as an individual when you make donations to your favorite candidate?

It certainly doesn’t come out of their compensation.

It certainly is not deducted from paychecks.

 

[What if...?]

Projection on your part. or are you buying policy as an individual when you make donations to your favorite candidate?

It certainly is not deducted from paychecks.

Not after the fact.

Just before by no raises., benefits, pensions.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Businesses use wealth obtained from their employees work to support one party or the other.

And that wealth from profits is not owned by the employees and is certainly not deducted from their paychecks

A union member can complain and vote against what a union does with dues.

The problem is that their dues are being used to finance political campaigns. Thatg should not be occurring.

Can an employee grumble about which party the boss contributed to?

All they like, however as long as it's not deducted from their paychecks, they have no say. Do you mandate what your barber or coffee shop spends profits on?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Not after the fact.

Just before by no raises., benefits, pensions.

Goofy comback. You are laughingly projecting that businesses donating to political campaigns forego passing out raises, benefits, and pensions.

 

[post]

I think in the beginning of their existence in the sweat shop era, they were a positive. Today however they are corrupt self serving and too embedded in national politics.

How much money has been invested, and by whom, to persuade you of that?

An unexceptionally talented individual worker (i.e., almost everybody) has no leverage to negotiate compensation, benefits, working conditions, or job security with a prospective employer. Unlike unionized employees, he or she can't know if compensation and disciplinary policy are fair and uniformly administered.

Your entire political POV amplifies identically what the wealthiest donors to G.O.P. have heavily invested in since Harding. The most valuable political POV are supported by the least financial investment of wealthiest conservatives.

It couldn't be easier to screen what is in your interest from what isn't, but all your posts are feedback of the G.O.P. investment in messaging.

 

[MAGAnificent]

How much money has been invested, and by whom, to persuade you of that? Your entire political POV amplifies identically what the wealthiest donors to G.O.P. have heavily invested in since Harding. The most valuable political POV are supported by the least financial investment of wealthiest conservatives.

It couldn't be easier to screen what is in your interest from what isn't, but all your posts are feedback of the G.O.P. investment in messaging.

Creative googling on your part. Tell me, how much does George Soros donate?

 

[post]

And that wealth from profits is not owned by the employees and is certainly not deducted from their paychecks

The problem is that their dues are being used to finance political campaigns. Thatg should not be occurring.

All they like, however as long as it's not deducted from their paychecks, they have no say. Do you mandate what your barber or coffee shop spends profits on?

But it is expressly invested against their general welfare, the quality of their lives and lives of their families. All the working class have is numerical advantage to stand in the way of the wealthiest writing and revising all legislation and directing what portion won't be enforced, nomination and confirmation of judges, and you've been thoroughly indoctrinated to give that advantage away, in exchange for..... ?

Post an example of unions donating to anti labor politicians or to promote passage of anti labor legislation. Union workers who don't want their unions to contribute to politicians in opposition to the political goals of non-unionized employers have the option of quitting.

 

[Nickyjo]

And that wealth from profits is not owned by the employees and is certainly not deducted from their paychecks

The problem is that their dues are being used to finance political campaigns. Thatg should not be occurring.

All they like, however as long as it's not deducted from their paychecks, they have no say. Do you mandate what your barber or coffee shop spends profits on?

Bottom line: union members have the right to object to how their unions spend money, and do something about it at local meetings or national elections. Employees have no ability to do anything about how their employer spends wealth their labor has created, because as you pointed out, they don’t own that wealth. Union members do indeed “own” the wealth their dues provide the union.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Creative googling on your part. Tell me, how much does George Soros donate?

Do your own book report. Then put on your big girl pants and tell us what the point of introducing that fact is.