|
Post by jdredd on May 19, 2009 20:54:21 GMT -5
I have talked to co-workers on many occasions and the thing I hear most often when I bring up Unions is that they are no longer needed. Do any of you agree or disagree and why?
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on May 20, 2009 2:42:07 GMT -5
Unions were needed to take on business greed at one time. Now they are the same as those they took on. Its amazing to me that most all systems would work if humans were more evolved. What seperates our nation from the rest, is the constitutional protection from government. Our founding fathers knew that those in charge always become corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 20, 2009 3:24:33 GMT -5
I will agree that years ago there was a lot of abuse taking place and unions filled the need for someone to fight for the worker. As the years passed, the governments have enacted many laws stopping such abuse. We have child labor laws, minimum wage laws and countless other laws enacted to protect the worker. The unions main goal today seems to be as inflationary agents to insure that their group gets more than another group (union or not). As they battle back and forth, the government enjoys the increased taxes they reap with higher payrolls. Meanwhile, the cost of everything goes up. If you pay close attention, watch each year when the military (and federal employees) get their annual pay raises. Prices in the local stores and even gas increases immediately! You may say that those raises are from congress but it was the unions that got them to give annual raises to the federal employees while the military got their raises due to other pressures. While an employed manager I dealt with and negotiated with 3 different trade unions and as an employer I dealt with 2 unions who tried, unsuccessfully, to unionize my employees. As the employed manager, the unions mostly tried to protect workers who violated regulations, did not put out a full days work and were generally people who would have been fired had it not been for the unions. And a few still got fired, it just took longer! When the unions fight for these derelicts, they do a great injustice for the remainder of the unionized work force. It is they who have to take up the slack for the slacker! Having to maintain those slackers, even for a little extra time before firing them, is costly to the employer and often have to hire 3 to get the work of 2. This pressures the employer to hold down wages due to the lower output of some of the workers. This again penalizes the good workers. The businesses that can tier their payroll without interference of the unions can justify higher pay to the better workers and hold down costs of those who slack off. When you hear equal pay for equal work, what is really meant is that it is equal pay if you hold the same job irregardless if the work output is equal or not! That SUCKS! One should be paid for their level of output. In bad times there is an opportunity for business to take advantage of the workers due to the lack of available work. In good times, like prior to our current economic outlook, many workers have a choice of jobs available if they are good workers. They will go where the pay is good. The others are just fillers, stuck to work where they can due to their own deficiencies. People want to get high pay without moving to where the pay is high and many don't work hard enough to earn that pay. In good times, the companies will pay good pay for good workers. They want to keep an employee who has good work ethics and output! Many companies know that they get what they pay for. If they don't pay enough, the good employees will often move elsewhere to make better pay. They don't need the union to do this. As more and more companies invest in quality control programs; Human Relations and Labor Relations Specialists, unions have little to do and just create problems to make it look like they are doing something for the employees. While this is taking place our government is continuously working on laws to insure fair treatment for the employees. Unfortunately, many of these laws go to far and are a burden upon the business. When a business is forced into a financial burden, it must make up for the costs. Often it is payroll cutbacks, freezes or layoffs. Businesses can only absorb so much before they stop making a profit. This is particularly hard on small businesses, while the large corporations have stock holders that deserve some payback on taking the risk of investing. Not all investors are rich and many retirement programs are tied into stocks. So there are many dominoes to consider when “tinkering” with business in relation to their employees. That the facilities are healthy, safe are major factors and tied to the minimum wage I would like to see employers have some latitude to ensure their employees perform adequately for their pay.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on May 20, 2009 6:06:56 GMT -5
As unionism has declined, so has the standard of living, along with the middle class,however you define it. Any idea why?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 20, 2009 12:40:13 GMT -5
Well, after Tired's epic and informative post, I feel inadequate to address it point by point, so I will just tell you where I am coming from philosophically. I am a history buff from way back and I have read quite a few history books. And when the subject of labor problems and Union organizing came up, my conclusion was that in the vast majority of cases, the people organizing the Unions were the good guys and the people opposing them were the bad guys. I am open to arguments that is no longer true.
One of the organizing slogans used by Union activists was "An injury to one is an injury to all", which was an reaction to management attempts to divide and conquer. What the organizers were attempting to build was the concept of solidarity amongst workers. Unfortunately, my experience is that in the modern American workplace, the concept of solidarity is almost unknown. I doubt one in five young workers has even heard the term. Of course management prefers it that way, it's easier to pick off workers one at a time. So be it, I say, I've already been kicked out of the workforce, so it's the younger workers who will have to suffer the consequences of their "every man for themselves" attitude. Which may lead back to my original question of why so many people think that there was a place for Unions a hundred years ago but not now. Do they think that the improvements brought about by Union activists years ago (40 hour workweeks, paid vacation and sick leave, safety rules etc.) are written in stone and can't be reversed? Do they really care so little about their fellow workers that they can watch one of them get kicked around by their bosses with total indifference? If we are talking about what is wrong with modern America and the "me" generation maybe we should start there.
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on May 20, 2009 13:21:04 GMT -5
Who needs unions when we can all work for Walmart at minimum wage, no bennifits, and no job security?
Who needs unions when a company can fire everyone, take the jobs overseas and pay no taxes?
Who needs unions, when corporations can toy with monopolies and price fix everything?
Who needs unions, Americans who are sick and tired of predatory capitalism that is ruining our economic system....thats who.
Middle class families who desearve a living wage needs unions...
Didnt Jesus say take care of thy brother?
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on May 20, 2009 13:22:15 GMT -5
Unions have also championed safe work places.... who needs a safe work place instead of more corporate profits?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 20, 2009 15:38:45 GMT -5
Who needs unions when we can all work for Walmart at minimum wage, no bennifits, and no job security? Who needs unions when a company can fire everyone, take the jobs overseas and pay no taxes? Who needs unions, when corporations can toy with monopolies and price fix everything? Who needs unions, Americans who are sick and tired of predatory capitalism that is ruining our economic system....thats who. Middle class families who desearve a living wage needs unions... Didnt Jesus say take care of thy brother? Which Jesus are you talking about, J.O.? The old one I grew up with who was against war and avarice, or the new improved Jesus who is not a pacifist and is OK with a lust for wealth?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 20, 2009 16:16:04 GMT -5
Who needs unions when we can all work for Walmart at minimum wage, no bennifits, and no job security? Who needs unions when a company can fire everyone, take the jobs overseas and pay no taxes? Who needs unions, when corporations can toy with monopolies and price fix everything? Who needs unions, Americans who are sick and tired of predatory capitalism that is ruining our economic system....thats who. Middle class families who desearve a living wage needs unions... Didnt Jesus say take care of thy brother? WHO NEEDS UNIONS, OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF US ALL!
|
|
|
Post by johng on May 20, 2009 18:16:51 GMT -5
Unions were needed to get the 40 hour week and 8 hour day. State and Federal Law now provides that - thanks to the union it is here and they have done the job well.
Union were needed to get a safer work place. Government now provides that through both State CALOSHA and Federal OSHA - thanks to the union this job is done well.
Unions were needed to stop the "Sweat Shop Labor and Child Labor Abuse". Government now regulates all this and again unions did a good job here.
Unions were needed to establish a fair minimum wage. State and Federal Minimum wages are now guaranteed to all - job well done by unions.
Unions felt they needed to provide Pension benefits to suppliment Social Security. Unions developed Pension funds and the government sanctioned this. Private business realized it had to provide Pension or equal (401K, Etc) accounts for employees to compete for good workers. Job Well Done union.
Unions then realized they had this HUGE fund of Pension and Union Dues sitting around and invested heavily in Hedge Funds and Various other equities to increase the bank. Then unions realized they had done such a good job of making "Middle Class Life" so good that they were losing membership in large volume because all the things they fought to get over the years had been replaced by State and Federal Labor Laws. Again Union, Good Job but you over did it and have lost appeal.
Unions then decided we need to "Work our Money In Government" so we stop losing membership and gain more power which is being lost. Member pension funds and dues are now being used to fund politicians around the country with "Pay To Play" returns. The current Administration is very Openly repaying the unions for this activity with reversal of PLA acts, working very hard to pass EFCA - Employee Free Choice Act - which is exactly the opposite as it intends to take away the private ballot election to unionize as has been the law for many many years. This alone prevents "gerrymandering" and unions can not get membership up on the merits of who they are and what they offer now without this government payback ploy!
Union pension funds across the board are now under funded and in danger of deficit to the point that many who have paid in will not be paid later. This is multifaceted due to abuse of the funds in government interferrence as well as loss of membership which could beef up the funds.
All things equal, the unions have known for sometime they have served their purpose and have no legit future need so they have taken to political thuggery and other divisive tactics. We will see just how they handle for the first time in our history the act of Business Owner and Employer rather than community activist and organizer! Chrysler yesterday and General Motors tomorrow! I think the GREED factor will continue to destroy the business opportunity as it has so we'll see if they are still valid...
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on May 20, 2009 18:25:56 GMT -5
There are those that champion unions and use politics of fear to keep them alive and strong. The fear being mongered is that if unions disappear, "big business" will go back to screwing the labor force.
With labor and safety laws in place and in effect, the political fear mongering is just that, and nothing more.
And does nothing to reduce global warming.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 20, 2009 19:05:33 GMT -5
Ok, jg, tired, hatch...I think I may actually beginning to get your message. What it is is the nature of reformist movements. As they age, they begin to take on the vices of what they were reforming. Think Animal Farm. Unions have probably reached a stage in their development where they are almost just another special interest. Not that that will make a difference in who's side I will be on in a strike. I never cross picket lines.
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on May 20, 2009 19:56:06 GMT -5
Which Jesus are you talking about, J.O.? The old one I grew up with who was against war and avarice, or the new improved Jesus who is not a pacifist and is OK with a lust for wealth? Nice !
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 20, 2009 20:22:17 GMT -5
There are those that champion unions and use politics of fear to keep them alive and strong. The fear being mongered is that if unions disappear, "big business" will go back to screwing the labor force.
With labor and safety laws in place and in effect, the political fear mongering is just that, and nothing more.
And does nothing to reduce global warming. Did you actually say that? The Unions and Democrats are well connected, would they actually do this? After all, according to Democrat posters here, fear mongering is a Republican trait! I'll have to go to SNOPES.COM or some other fact verifier to verify that Democrats & Unions fear monger! johng on Today at 4:16pm - VERY WELL STATED!
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on May 20, 2009 20:43:09 GMT -5
Johng nailed it.
We mostly agree unions played an important role in today’s workforce, safety, hours, age; those are achievements and now laws.
Okay, but what have you done for me recently. I played professional baseball as did my oldest son, I remember vividly Hoyt Wilhelm telling me you are only as good as your next pitch. If unions have a place today what can the worker expect tomorrow?
If we slip back a few years to the grocery strike, the strikers were the victims, they will never recover lost wages, nor did their effort benefit the incoming class. Union bosses did not suffer, union bosses did not miss a paycheck.
What are you people defending?
|
|