Unions in the US

[The Rabbi]

I've never been a union member.

But, I worked for a company for many years that had unions and every time the union got an increae of some kind, we so called "professional staffers" also got a bump.

So yes, I think unions are necessary and the threat of an organized workforce is the only thing that keeps unscrupulous employers in line.

You realize that the industries that saw the highest wages paid during the heyday of unions, the 1950s/1960s, are also the ones that experienced the largest number of layoffs and closings, right?
What good is it to workers if they negotiate outsized wages and benefits, only to see their industry get hammered and downsize and/or close?

 

[The Rabbi]

I do more than one thing for employment, but one of those roles was unionized in 2007. Since then, wages for members has increased 30% and benefits have improved. There is still a role for unions because there is still a need for collective bargaining.

Why is there a need for collective bargaining when workers can easily shop for the best wages and benefits? If companies are not attracting appropriate workers for what they want to pay, they will have to increase their compensation package. It's called "the free market". Some people ought to try it sometime.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets see where we are going with this..

We can't have "Big Gubmint" interfering in labor laws and we need to get rid of the unions

So that leaves the worker with big business looking out for his well being

What could be wrong with that?

 

[8537]

I do more than one thing for employment, but one of those roles was unionized in 2007. Since then, wages for members has increased 30% and benefits have improved. There is still a role for unions because there is still a need for collective bargaining.

Why is there a need for collective bargaining when workers can easily shop for the best wages and benefits?

because workers can't easily shop for the best wages and benefits.

If companies are not attracting appropriate workers for what they want to pay, they will have to increase their compensation package. It's called "the free market". Some people ought to try it sometime.

Unions are free-market development.

 

[kwc57]

Back at some time in the long past unions were used to assure there was equitable power between owners and workers. That time is long past, of course.
Today there is not an industry traditionally dominated by unions that has not experienced stagnation and shrinkage. But even more, the need for unions to engage in collective bargaining is moribund, as workers are better educated and better informed.
Unions exist basically through a waiver in anti trust law. Is it not now time to repeal that waiver and outlaw unions as they have traditionally been constituted? This is especially so with public-sector unions, which seem to pose a direct financial threat to the entities they serve.

Back at some time in the long past the constitution was used to assure there was equitable power between branches of government, the states and the people. That time is long past, of course. See the fallacy in that statement?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Interesting question. And I can understand the arguments on both sides.

But what I will say emphatically is that unions will absolutely become necessary again if they're ever done away with.

yep.....back will come the mindset of the industries that were responsible for Unions coming about in the first place....

 

[Harry Dresden]

With the laws and regulations we now have on the books about compensation and safety in the workplace unions are no longer necessary.

Thats the answer in a nutshell.

maybe where you work.....

 

[manifold]

To me unions are somewhat analogous to the 2nd Amendment. If you dont' have it, that's when you'll need it most.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

With the laws and regulations we now have on the books about compensation and safety in the workplace unions are no longer necessary.

Thats the answer in a nutshell.

maybe where you work.....

You're place of employment is exempt from OSHA, EEOC rules, etc.?

Unions are unnecessary... hence their dwindling ranks. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

 

[The Rabbi]

I do more than one thing for employment, but one of those roles was unionized in 2007. Since then, wages for members has increased 30% and benefits have improved. There is still a role for unions because there is still a need for collective bargaining.

Why is there a need for collective bargaining when workers can easily shop for the best wages and benefits?

because workers can't easily shop for the best wages and benefits.
.

Why not? In the internet age there is almost instant communication of all sorts of information, including wage and benefit info. Companies want to tout their openings and wages/benefits so they can get the most qualified applicants for the wages they offer. And workers are better educated than ever before, so they can take advantage of that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Back at some time in the long past unions were used to assure there was equitable power between owners and workers. That time is long past, of course.
Today there is not an industry traditionally dominated by unions that has not experienced stagnation and shrinkage. But even more, the need for unions to engage in collective bargaining is moribund, as workers are better educated and better informed.
Unions exist basically through a waiver in anti trust law. Is it not now time to repeal that waiver and outlaw unions as they have traditionally been constituted? This is especially so with public-sector unions, which seem to pose a direct financial threat to the entities they serve.

Back at some time in the long past the constitution was used to assure there was equitable power between branches of government, the states and the people. That time is long past, of course. See the fallacy in that statement?

Sure. "That time is long past" is the fallacy. We need the Constitution just as much today because the same conditions obtain as when it was written.
That is not the case with unions, where a better-educated workforce combined with better information dissemination makes unions obsolete.
See the difference?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Back at some time in the long past unions were used to assure there was equitable power between owners and workers. That time is long past, of course.
Today there is not an industry traditionally dominated by unions that has not experienced stagnation and shrinkage. But even more, the need for unions to engage in collective bargaining is moribund, as workers are better educated and better informed.
Unions exist basically through a waiver in anti trust law. Is it not now time to repeal that waiver and outlaw unions as they have traditionally been constituted? This is especially so with public-sector unions, which seem to pose a direct financial threat to the entities they serve.

Really Rabbi, tell the truth. What experience do you have with unions and union negotiations? And have you ever taken and passed U.S. History?
You're such a troll it's hard to believe you're as ignorant as your posts suggest (though I do not dismiss the possibility).

 

[kwc57]

Back at some time in the long past unions were used to assure there was equitable power between owners and workers. That time is long past, of course.
Today there is not an industry traditionally dominated by unions that has not experienced stagnation and shrinkage. But even more, the need for unions to engage in collective bargaining is moribund, as workers are better educated and better informed.
Unions exist basically through a waiver in anti trust law. Is it not now time to repeal that waiver and outlaw unions as they have traditionally been constituted? This is especially so with public-sector unions, which seem to pose a direct financial threat to the entities they serve.

Back at some time in the long past the constitution was used to assure there was equitable power between branches of government, the states and the people. That time is long past, of course. See the fallacy in that statement?

Sure. "That time is long past" is the fallacy. We need the Constitution just as much today because the same conditions obtain as when it was written.
That is not the case with unions, where a better-educated workforce combined with better information dissemination makes unions obsolete.
See the difference?

Wrong. The constitution set up the environment and culture of rights we enjoy. It did it's job. If we do away with it, those rights should simply continue on since it is a part of our culture now. That is the argument you make for getting rid of unions. They served their purpose, things are good now, so we don't need them anymore. Do away with them....just like the constitution......and see what happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

Back at some time in the long past the constitution was used to assure there was equitable power between branches of government, the states and the people. That time is long past, of course. See the fallacy in that statement?

Sure. "That time is long past" is the fallacy. We need the Constitution just as much today because the same conditions obtain as when it was written.
That is not the case with unions, where a better-educated workforce combined with better information dissemination makes unions obsolete.
See the difference?

Wrong. The constitution set up the environment and culture of rights we enjoy. It did it's job. If we do away with it, those rights should simply continue on since it is a part of our culture now. That is the argument you make for getting rid of unions. They served their purpose, things are good now, so we don't need them anymore. Do away with them....just like the consitution......and see what happens.

No, that is not my argument.
My argument is that the Constitution plays the role of referee among different parties with competing interests. That is as true today as it was in 1800.
Unions play a role that has been easily superceded by different social and economic conditions. This is probably why union membership as a percentage of the workforce has dropped to all time lows recently.

 

[Intense]

Are Unions Necessary?

No!!!

 

[kwc57]

Sure. "That time is long past" is the fallacy. We need the Constitution just as much today because the same conditions obtain as when it was written.
That is not the case with unions, where a better-educated workforce combined with better information dissemination makes unions obsolete.
See the difference?

Wrong. The constitution set up the environment and culture of rights we enjoy. It did it's job. If we do away with it, those rights should simply continue on since it is a part of our culture now. That is the argument you make for getting rid of unions. They served their purpose, things are good now, so we don't need them anymore. Do away with them....just like the consitution......and see what happens.

No, that is not my argument.
My argument is that the Constitution plays the role of referee among different parties with competing interests. That is as true today as it was in 1800.
Unions play a role that has been easily superceded by different social and economic conditions. This is probably why union membership as a percentage of the workforce has dropped to all time lows recently.

It was the unions who brought about those social and economic conditions in the work place. Remove them and you will slip backwards over time. I'm conservative. I'm not a union member and never have been. But just like the constitution, I understand what it would be like if we didn't have unions. Are there problems? Sure. Do they overreach? Of course they do. If they didn't exist, would the corporations overreach like they did in the past? You damn bet you.

 

[midcan5]

The first thought one has to ask when reading nonsense like this is why? Do unions frighten the wingnuts on the right? Is Rabbi an owner of Walmart where billions are fine for the owners but the workers get 32 hour weeks so they can remain poor? Did a wingnut think tank send a signal to the receiver in this wingnuts head telling him to be concerned with unions today? Weird these wingnuts, life is short and yet their only concern is with the institutions that helped make life a little nicer for many Americans and still provide a positve threat to complete slavery of the working class. Ever wonder why the Northeast U.S. is far ahead of much of wingnut-land? Because of strong unions and fair wages that helped create a higher standard of living.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50913-american-unions.html

Joe Bageant: Oligarchy, corporations and unions

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/79041-cheap-labor.html

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy'

.

 

[8537]

Why is there a need for collective bargaining when workers can easily shop for the best wages and benefits?

because workers can't easily shop for the best wages and benefits.
.

Why not? In the internet age there is almost instant communication of all sorts of information, including wage and benefit info.

For a wide variety of reasons, the biggest being that the labor market isn't the picture of mobility dreamed up by the conservatarian RBC descendants. Families don't just pick up and move in search of better working environments on a whim. Instead, Unions allow those families to maximize the benefits to their families without having to get up and move to chase better working conditions.

In addition, the traditional union shops are in industries dominated by small oligopolies or monopolistic competitors. There are not an infinite number of places to take one's skills from a mine, or an iron shop, or the auto industry.

 

[Mr Natural]

Are Unions Necessary?

No!!!

YES!

And if for no other reason than to keep greedy-ass, money-grubbing motherfuckers from shitting all over their workforce.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure. "That time is long past" is the fallacy. We need the Constitution just as much today because the same conditions obtain as when it was written.
That is not the case with unions, where a better-educated workforce combined with better information dissemination makes unions obsolete.
See the difference?

Wrong. The constitution set up the environment and culture of rights we enjoy. It did it's job. If we do away with it, those rights should simply continue on since it is a part of our culture now. That is the argument you make for getting rid of unions. They served their purpose, things are good now, so we don't need them anymore. Do away with them....just like the consitution......and see what happens.

No, that is not my argument.
My argument is that the Constitution plays the role of referee among different parties with competing interests. That is as true today as it was in 1800.
Unions play a role that has been easily superceded by different social and economic conditions. This is probably why union membership as a percentage of the workforce has dropped to all time lows recently.

Well golly Rabbi...

Don't you think the proper response is to allow workers to decide whether they need a union or not?

Why should you, or management for that matter, get to decide for them?