Tell Me Why Unions Are Bad

[AntiParty]

Today, Unions are at the same all time low as they were in the Great Depression. The workers have no power, the bosses can treat them like scum. But we are happy to be treated like scum because we are happy to be one of the few employed.

When the HARD worker demands the pay they earn, America will change for the better. The middle class will be able to afford the products they work to produce.

The Boss runs the Company/Corporation. Let the boss get rich. But if you get poor when the boss get's rich, there is trouble.


Profits At High, Wages At Low - Business Insider

 

[AntiParty]

CEO vs. worker pay: 10 companies with the biggest gaps - AT&T - CSMonitor.com

Check the hourly gap from worker to CEO.

 

[zen]

Unions aren't "bad"...much of what you said in OP is true (I don't think that unions were the only force that brought ALL those changes, but it ain't worth arguing over.) What unions ARE is abused. I worked in a union shop as a manager, and I am the grandson of a union organizer/steward, so I've seen both sides.
First, labor law prevents employers from buying labor at market rates. When unions "strike" employees don't show up to work and the boss can't hire new people-who are willing to work/show up- because labor law states that he has to give in to the extortion, or go out of business. The results of this practice are evident in places like Detroit and all across the rustbelt, as well as West Virginia, where miners struck and struck until mine owners figured out how to mine coal without miners (it's called "mountain top removal")...btw, I don't blame the decline in American manufacturing entirely on labor, out-of-control regulators, the high cost of capital, political folly (nafta, gatt, most-favored-nation status for China) and an economic philosophy that believes that the service sector can produce wealth are all to blame.

You can catch a union member red-handed, not doing his job, over and over...you can't fire him, he always manages to appeal his way back in the gate...so his job doesn't get done..

Got an MBA?" Well, F... Y..., these high school grads are about to tell you how to run your company"...

Is somebody out sick? Do you need his job done? Well, "F.... Y.., I'm not doing his job, you'll have to call somebody in.."

...the problem is that the Union subculture teaches that employees are supposed to hate the company and the people who manage them...they want a paycheck while they destroy the company that they work for...cooperation isn't just discouraged, it's forbidden...

Their motto is always the same: "Less Work, More Pay"...

You want to make more money? Get more skills, make yourself more valuable and you can earn more--unless you work in a union shop, where seniority beats merit every day in every way...

And then there is the organized crime thing...mobsters, murderers, bribes, etc...

You asked why they are bad, well there are some reasons...ultimately, they lead to the destruction of the jobs tat they are suppose to be protecting...

 

[The T]

Note; No argument is a bad argument. But if you just say, "You are stupid" you will be generalized as the bad and sadly typical argument.

A stupid generalization is worse than a bad argument. While union members thought they were getting a good deal thugs like Hoffa were skimming union dues. Stupid union members thought they were getting a good deal time and time again and the labor leaders jumped ship when the factories closed because the manufacturers couldn't afford it. Municipal unions are the most insidious. Major labor unions extract every dime from taxpayers while union officials laugh at golden retirements while municipalities can't even afford police protection.

Hoffa went missing decades ago.

Factories didn't close because the owners went all poor, they closed because the thug bosses went overseas for cheap slave labor.

Labor unions don't collect taxpayer monies.

It's executive level employees that get the golden parachutes.

Municipalities can't afford cops because there's no middle class left to pay taxes. The poor can't and the rich offshored their capital.

Guess YOU forgot Hoffa's SON, didn't you? The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tell me why Unions are bad. Don't get me wrong, I study the abuse of Unions just like I study the abuse of everything that gets out of control.

Regulation isn't a bad word for either party. It's a necessary and Constitutional word.

So.......since Unions gave us;

1.Weekends without work
2.All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
3.Paid vacation
4.Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
5.Sick leave
6.Social Security
7.Minimum wage
8.Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination
9.8-hour work day
10.Overtime pay
11.Child labor laws
12.Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
13.40-hour work week
14.Workers’ compensation (workers’ comp)
15.Unemployment insurance
16.Pensions
17.Workplace safety standards and regulations
18.Employer health care insurance
19.Collective bargaining rights for employees
20.Wrongful termination laws
21.Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
22.Whistleblower protection laws
23.Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee
24.Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
25.Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises)
26.Sexual harassment laws
27.Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
28.Holiday pay
29.Employer dental, life, and vision insurance
30.Privacy rights
31.Pregnancy and parental leave
32.Military leave
33.The right to strike
34.Public education for children
35.Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work
36.Laws ending sweatshops in the United States

Tell me why they are bad.

Let me start. NO Union should force anyone to join a Union pending employment. That's the exact polar opposite of Citizens United forcing employee's to use their money to pay for something they don't believe in.

The people aren't stupid. Let the people chose. The people run this Country. NOT the Government or the Media that pays Millions to politicians.

Hey genius, does Detroit ring a bell?

 

[Zander]

Unions are fine, they still work for employee rights.

Do you want to know the real reason wingnuts hate unions?

It's because 3 of the top 10 donors to the democratic party are unions.

In other words, the right has no problem with the Kochs throwing millions of dollars into elections, but they don't want anyone else to do the same thing.

Because they're incapable of fair play.

You are wrong. The mass majority of conservatives do not oppose all UNIONS. They oppose PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. Private sector unions have a place in our economy. Public sector unions are a scourge and a conflict of interest so obvious that even FDR opposed them.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Maybe you, Zander, and some members of your party, but the wingnuts have dragged everyone else down to their level. According to them all union members are greedy thugs that sit on their asses in the factories all day while collecting $60/hour in wages.

Myself, I don't see why public workers should be denied a voice.

I do not think that all union workers are lazy greedy thugs, but stereotypes do usually have a basis in truth. There are some bad apples that hide behind union rules....

Once we allow public sector unions to negotiate wages and benefits, we are creating a conflict of interest between the union and the taxpayers. The taxpayers are getting screwed. Charles Lane sums it quite succinctly here.....

Is public-sector collective bargaining in the public interest?

The answer is no. All members of the public use schools, roads, parks and other government services — and pay taxes to support them. Their interest lies in receiving the highest-quality services at the lowest feasible cost. Period.

Public-sector unions interfere. They demand more pay and benefits, and more control over the workplace, than the people’s elected representatives might choose if they were answerable only to voters.

Indeed, political war chests accumulated through dues checkoffs and agency fees give public-sector unions more influence than ordinary voters in many states and counties. At contract time, they face their political allies across a bargaining table. That table, by the way, is behind closed doors; collective bargaining is often exempt from “sunshine laws” that cover other public business.

Charles Lane: Public-sector unions interfere with the public interest - The Washington Post

In the private sector there is no conflict of interest against the taxpayers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Buisness owners Unionize. That's fact. So why don't the people?

^^^ This right here. And people just because someone says "Unions USED To be needed but not anymore" means dick. The reasons Unions were created was a response to being abused. If you think abusing people is no longer wanted, you dont know human beings at all.

Greed hasnt disappeared has it?

 

[Plasmaball]

Even HL Mencken thought unions were a good idea for workers...he like many people today just had/has issues with who takes over unions and what they do with the power.

Only a fool would suggest unions as a concept are a bad idea

This...

 

[ClosedCaption]

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Spoiler: Who said that?

the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln

This is almost exactly the same thing I think Right Winger was saying in another thread

 

[longknife]

I've worked in union and non-union shops, albeit not for any length of time.

Shop stewards, in my experience, are often selected for their length of tenure and NOT the abilities to represent their members effectively.

And, what shop stewards being to the local union organization are routinely ignored.

The national organizations could care less what the general membership wishes and takes action based upon keeping themselves in power.

Unions, without question, played a huge role in creating the modern workplace. But, that was decades ago. Time to move on.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are misrepresenting the position here. Very few people really think that unions as a whole are bad. That is reserved for those that really don’t bother to think. The position is not that unions are bad but that they have become a bad force in modern times. This is mostly due to the fact that unions have been offered special protections over the years that have reduced their requirement to actually fight for the workers. This is because membership in a union is a MANDATORY function of employment. In virtually all the problem areas, this has been the core problem. When your ‘members’ are legally bound to pay you, why would you offer a quality service?

The reality is that you don’t. That service does not gain you anything so they really don’t bother.

We are starting to fix that travesty though. Right to work states have taken that protection that no other entity receives and made it illegal allowing people to join a union at will rather than forcing them into one as a matter of employment.

Unions should not be destroyed or ended as a practice – they are vital for the workers to maintain leverage in their positions should they need or want it. There is nothing inherently wrong at all with joining together to represent your shared interests. There is something vitally wrong with those unions getting special protections though that forces one to participate in a practice that they do not want to be a part of.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I openly stated in the OP that Forced Unionship is the biggest issue with Unions. Reading is grand.

Reading is grand. You should try it.

You misrepresented the argument by framing it in such a way as to make current opposition to unions somehow labeling them as ‘bad.’ You then continue this asinine straw man through this thread by attacking half the respondents with asinine ‘fox news’ assertions.

Very few people think unions are ‘bad’ as an entire concept. The way the OP starts out is a straw man.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are misrepresenting the position here. Very few people really think that unions as a whole are bad. That is reserved for those that really don’t bother to think. The position is not that unions are bad but that they have become a bad force in modern times. This is mostly due to the fact that unions have been offered special protections over the years that have reduced their requirement to actually fight for the workers. This is because membership in a union is a MANDATORY function of employment. In virtually all the problem areas, this has been the core problem. When your ‘members’ are legally bound to pay you, why would you offer a quality service?

The reality is that you don’t. That service does not gain you anything so they really don’t bother.

We are starting to fix that travesty though. Right to work states have taken that protection that no other entity receives and made it illegal allowing people to join a union at will rather than forcing them into one as a matter of employment.

Unions should not be destroyed or ended as a practice – they are vital for the workers to maintain leverage in their positions should they need or want it. There is nothing inherently wrong at all with joining together to represent your shared interests. There is something vitally wrong with those unions getting special protections though that forces one to participate in a practice that they do not want to be a part of.

This is because membership in a union is a MANDATORY function of employment.

not all Unions.....the one i was in was not mandatory....but those guys who were not in it sure enjoyed the pay and benefits that Union got them....

Certainly not all unions are like that. NONE should be though. If the workers like and want the union to continue then they should WILLINGLY mobilize to support it. Otherwise, the union simply does not represent the workers because it does not have to – they get your dues whether or not they are productive and beneficial to the membership.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ignore the thread de-rail machine.

The topic is Unions.

Explain what Unions have done to hurt America.

So far. Unions have obvious flaws, but are winning. Besides what was in the OP there has been no valid argument for why Unions shouldn't be in place.

(basically because Unions are workers that demand their worth, HOW DARE THEY!)

Winning?

Perhaps you can define what you mean by winning because from where I sit unions are not only losing but they are losing terribly. Union membership is on the decline and the end to that is nowhere in sight. Unions in general are going away and that is generally NOT a good thing. They are losing, in my opinion, because the largest and most visible of them are clearly NOT supporting the workers that they are supposedly representing. Even some that are have forgotten that in order for the company to continue employing those workers, the company must also remain solvent. As such, we are losing jobs to markets that offer cheap labor.

You want to know how unions are hurting America – they are hurting because they are no longer performing their function properly.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Animal Farm.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unions are fine, they still work for employee rights.

Do you want to know the real reason wingnuts hate unions?

It's because 3 of the top 10 donors to the democratic party are unions.

In other words, the right has no problem with the Kochs throwing millions of dollars into elections, but they don't want anyone else to do the same thing.

Because they're incapable of fair play.

You are wrong. The mass majority of conservatives do not oppose all UNIONS. They oppose PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. Private sector unions have a place in our economy. Public sector unions are a scourge and a conflict of interest so obvious that even FDR opposed them.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Public Sector Unions LOL. All Union-ship is about is people trying to get power over a select few trying to stomp on them.

No, it’s not. No one is trying to stomp on anyone. This idea that the company is in opposition to its employment is completely asinine. A company works in unison with its employment or it goes out of business. It can’t pay substandard wages without losing its talent – also ending in a failed company. This view of us against them is one of the poisonous concepts associated with unions today.

A union’s function is to represent the workers in general and work out the best form and level of compensation collectively. That does not have to involve anyone being ‘stomped’ on.

The problem with public sector unions is rather simple – no one is representing the other side. Is it really that hard to understand that the politician you just paid millions in campaign funds ‘negotiating’ your contract is completely corrupt to the core?

It is painfully obvious the problem here. Can anyone actually defend this asinine practice?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it’s not. No one is trying to stomp on anyone. This idea that the company is in opposition to its employment is completely asinine. A company works in unison with its employment or it goes out of business. It can’t pay substandard wages without losing its talent – also ending in a failed company. This view of us against them is one of the poisonous concepts associated with unions today.

A union’s function is to represent the workers in general and work out the best form and level of compensation collectively. That does not have to involve anyone being ‘stomped’ on.

The problem with public sector unions is rather simple – no one is representing the other side. Is it really that hard to understand that the politician you just paid millions in campaign funds ‘negotiating’ your contract is completely corrupt to the core?

It is painfully obvious the problem here. Can anyone actually defend this asinine practice?

Only, companies lie, they do all sorts of things that put workers in a bad position.

Now, I worked for a company that paid bonuses at the end of the contract. There are plenty of ways they don't care about their workers and cause all sorts of problems, like moving and reducing holidays against the contract and if you oppose this what do you? You can try and go to court or whatever, but as a single person fighting a company that is no doubt richer than you are, you're going to have problems. Hence unions.

 

[Mr Natural]

It's almost as if they actually believe their employer is on their side.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Every debate has to be binary, all or nothing, either/or.

This isn't 1940 or 1970. In a hyper-competitive global business market, unions as they have been are a net negative. But that doesn't mean that they can't be tweaked to be more effective for all.

Collective wage bargaining? Fine.

Workplace safety? Great. Obviously.

Pensions? Long-term killer. Obviously. Change to 401K with the negotiations being about employer matching contributions and vesting schedules.

Bloat? A truck can only carry certain products, or nothing can be done if a union member isn't there? Ridiculous. Get rid of that wasteful bullshit.

Firing? A business is in any way hamstrung from firing someone because they're not performing? Ridiculous. Lowered quality harms everyone. That decision belongs to the business.

It doesn't have to be either/or. But the above changes would require mature, civil, honest discourse and cooperation.

A new union approach could mean an EXPLOSION of union signups and a true return to national relevance, but no, both sides have to "win".

.

 

[Redfish]

Unions are not inherently bad, in the 1920s and 1930s they were necessary to protect workers from abuse.

Today workers are protected by laws, unions are no longer needed.

today's unions are nothing but a money collection agency for the dem party. Especially government workers unions---------most corrupt of all, the unions contribute money to the candidates who are responsible for negotiating their contracts-----do any of you libs see the conflict of interest in that?

 

[Redfish]

It's almost as if they actually believe their employer is on their side.

an intelligent employer IS on the side of his employees. He realizes that his employees make the business successful and he will take care of them.

a stupid employer will not survive.

Unions will hurt the intelligent employer and his employees, and will not save the stupid employer and his employees.