We all know you hate labor unions but do you hate collective bargaining itself?

[Arthur]

Most of my working life I've been self-employed. I was a union member RARELY. I'm not a great fan of unions but I'm not a fan of exploitive company owners and managers either.

When a non-profit I worked for wanted to unionize I was actually AGAINST the union effort.

I'm in favor of collective bargaining, but cautious about unions.

I'm pro-union in principle, but rarely in practice.

 

[Si modo]

It's good to get clear on your position. Posting with people who disagree helps that.

Consider why unions were created in the first place. Coal miners were getting sick and injured on the job because of unsafe conditions. They were nothing more than serfs, the companies took rent and food out of the workers pay making them shop at company owned stores.

We're going backwards in time instead of forward. That's conservatives for you.

Good for the unions of a century ago.

Now we have federal laws and regulations to protect all workers with respect to safety and exploitation, for example.

The unions are useless, now.

 

[SniperFire]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

Yes. There is a Constitutional right for people to petition and assemble.

But 'undue retaliation' does not include replacing the workforce if the employer cannot come to terms with the employees.

The argument that such laws are needed to give Unions teeth does not make it a fair or just law.

 

[dblack]

Most of my working life I've been self-employed. I was a union member RARELY. I'm not a great fan of unions but I'm not a fan of exploitive company owners and managers either.

When a non-profit I worked for wanted to unionize I was actually AGAINST the union effort.

I'm in favor of collective bargaining, but cautious about unions.

That's funny. I'd say I'd go with the opposite statement. Unions can be a real boon. But special privilege, in the form of ad-hoc 'collective bargaining' laws, that apply only to certain unions in certain situations, etc, etc.... is the problem. While it's certainly possible to have collective bargaining without constructing specialized laws around it, that's not what we have. As pointed out earlier, if I decide to go on strike, or I and a couple of other employees decide to go walk out - we won't enjoy the special protection the union guys get.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

Anyone has the right to bargain individually or collectively but an employer does not have to accept it if he doesn't want to.

And anyone who walks off a job does not have the right to keep that job. period.

 

[OKTexas]

The GOP has been very successful in exploiting workers by undermining and weakening unions in America.

They are the party of fat cats.

Really, I think you need to do a little research and check which party has been on their hands a knees taking in both ends from the enviro-weenies and forcing manufacturing off shore. When you have a 70+% consumer based economy wages will decline. Service and retail jobs don't pay well, never have, never will. You need to wake the hell up and smell the turds the commiecrats are dumping on your little head. They claim to be on your side while continually adding regulations that make it increasing difficult for a company to do business in this country. Before long the best jobs in the country will be a clerk at 7-11 or Duncan dough nuts, and because of Maobamacare even they will be part time.

 

[jgarden]

Labor unions and collective bargining are nothing more than a form of "checks and balances" extended to the private sector.

Most Americans would agree that Constitution and its division of powers have served the nation well and contributed to the longetivity of the Republic. The process may be slow and frustrating at times, but it appears to have been more successful than all the alternatives.

The same principle applies to the private sector, without "checks and balances" power and wealth become concentrated in a few hands without any institutional means to rebalance rebalance the inequities over time - that becomes the formula for a revolution in the making.

In 2010, 11.4% of all American workers were unionized - with only 7% of those employeed in the private sector unionized (lowest since 1932). This stands in marked contrast to the 35% of US workers who belonged to unions in the early 1950's. The fact that unions were held in such high esteem in the 1950's and in such low esteen today, despite the fact they a mere 7% of private sector workers, speaks volumes as to the veracity of the campaign to discredit them.

It could be argued that with the decline of unions over the last 60 years the economic pendulumhas swung too far in favor of the management in the private sector, resulting in a relative decline in wages and the standard of living. The stage is being set for a major "readjustment" - the only question is whether that "readjustment" will happen in a peaceful or a violent manner. My best guess is that Americans will look back at this period and "kick themselves" for not pursing a peaceful "readjustment" when there was a "window of opportunity."

Switzerland (19%), Sweden (71%) and Finland (70%) all have substantially higher numbers of unionized labour than the US and continue to rank as more economically competitive than their American counterpart leading to the conclusion that its not socialism and/or the rate of unionization such not be used as "scaoegoats" impact on the explain this nation's economic malaise.

 

[dblack]

Labor unions and collective bargining are nothing more than a form of "checks and balances" extended to the private sector...

I have no doubt that's how many people want it to be, and to the extent that they've had their way, that's been happening. But it's a horrible development. The private sector is not another wing of government to be managed, regulated and 'improved' or otherwise 'whipped into shape'. The premise that it is, that even the private sector is subject to government mandate, is the heart and soul of corporatism - a pit we're rapidly sliding into.

 

[jgarden]

Labor unions and collective bargining are nothing more than a form of "checks and balances" extended to the private sector...

I have no doubt that's how many people want it to be, and to the extent that they've had their way, that's been happening. But it's a horrible development. The private sector is not another wing of government to be managed, regulated and 'improved' or otherwise 'whipped into shape'. The premise that it is, that even the private sector is subject to government mandate, is the heart and soul of corporatism - a pit we're rapidly sliding into.

In classical capitalism, the private sector is "managed, regulated and 'improved' or otherwise 'whipped into shape'" by the marketplace and workers, including those who represent them, that are an integral part of that marketplace. Certain segments of the economy organize among themselves and lobby the fovernment (banks, stock exchanges, railways, oil companies, etc.), but in America, labor is supposed to play by a different set of rules - preferably with "both hands tied behind its back."

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, government is required to provide the economic , social and political stability, not to mention a reliable legal system, transportation, energy, infrastructure, trained source of labor, etc, etc, etc. that the private sector requires - and preferably all at the public sector's expense.

Recent inventions such as the computer and the internet that have benefitted the private sector were the direct result of government research and development, financed with taxpyers money.

Last but certainly not least, the private sector requires a marketplace to sell its good and despite the fact that America has represented only 6% of the world's population, its middle class became the "golden goose" for the purchase retails goods.

Given that wages for unionized workers average 10 to 30% higher than their non-union counterparts, that discretionary income would help explain why the period with the high % of unionized workers in the US also happens to correspond to the most prosperous periods in America's economic history.

 

[bripat9643]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

Anyone has the right to bargain individually or collectively but an employer does not have to accept it if he doesn't want to.

And anyone who walks off a job does not have the right to keep that job. period.

What union goons mean by "collective bargaining rights" is the right of union goons to force employers to bargain only with their union and no one else. That means no rights for anyone who isn't a union member.

The term is actually an oxymoron.

 

[dblack]

Labor unions and collective bargining are nothing more than a form of "checks and balances" extended to the private sector...

I have no doubt that's how many people want it to be, and to the extent that they've had their way, that's been happening. But it's a horrible development. The private sector is not another wing of government to be managed, regulated and 'improved' or otherwise 'whipped into shape'. The premise that it is, that even the private sector is subject to government mandate, is the heart and soul of corporatism - a pit we're rapidly sliding into.

In classical capitalism, the private sector is "managed, regulated and 'improved' or otherwise 'whipped into shape'" by the marketplace.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, government is required to provide the economic , social and political stability, not to mention a legal system, transportation, energy, infrastructure, trained source of labor, etc, etc, etc.

Recent inventions such as the computer and the internet that have benefited the private sector were the direct result of government research and development, financed with taxpyers money.

Last but certainly not least, the private sector requires a marketplace to sell its good and despite the fact that America represented only 6% of the world's population, its middle class became the planet's "golden goose" for the purchase retails goods.

Yeah. That's the usual corporatist argument. But it creates government that stands in opposition to freedom rather than in its defense.

 

[jhc1983]

Just curious about this, not looking for the same old rant about unions being selfish or corrupt but an exploration of a right (collective bargaining) that did not always exist and seems to be in greater peril than ever. To be specific: Do American workers have the right to collectively bargain, to strike if unsuccessful, and to be protected from undue retaliation under the law?

Anyone has the right to bargain individually or collectively but an employer does not have to accept it if he doesn't want to.

And anyone who walks off a job does not have the right to keep that job. period.

What union goons mean by "collective bargaining rights" is the right of union goons to force employers to bargain only with their union and no one else. That means no rights for anyone who isn't a union member.

The term is actually an oxymoron.

Employers should be forced to bargain with the workers. If not than people will be screwed by the employers.

 

[blackhawk]

This is a bit off topic but I saw Today that 13 Chrysler workers who got caught by a news crew drinking and smoking pot on their lunch break and were fired for it got there jobs back. Does anyone really think they deserved to get their jobs back after that? I know if I got caught doing that on my lunch hour I wouldn't get my job back.

 

[bripat9643]

In classical capitalism, the private sector is "managed, regulated and 'improved' or otherwise 'whipped into shape'" by the marketplace.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, government is required to provide the economic , social and political stability, not to mention a legal system, transportation, energy, infrastructure, trained source of labor, etc, etc, etc.

Wrong. The private sector can easily supply transportation, energy, infrastructure and trained labor. I have no idea what you mean by providing "economic, social and political stability." However, the historical record for our government isn't good in any of these areas. Every time a new party is in power it tries to go about rewriting the rules that businesses must operate under. Obamacare and Obama's proposed tax code changes are evidence of that. Government under democracy causes frequent wars, changes the social rules and displays little political stability.

Recent inventions such as the computer and the internet that have benefited the private sector were the direct result of government research and development, financed with taxpyers money.

Oh puhleeze. Before WW II, there was no government research. The private sector was the source for all technical innovation. Government has recently horned in on the act, but there isn't a single reason why the private sector wouldn't have produced these innovations on its own. 95% of the advances required to create the computer were developed by the private sector.

Last but certainly not least, the private sector requires a marketplace to sell its good and despite the fact that America represented only 6% of the world's population, its middle class became the planet's "golden goose" for the purchase retails goods.

I don't see the relevance here. The market place is the private sector. Government needs the market place to purchase the goods and services it requires.

Given that wages for unionized workers average 10 to 30% higher than their non-union counterparts in America, than discretionary income is funneled back into the nation's economy which would explain why the period with the high % of unionized workers also corresponds to the most prosperous periods in America's history.[/b]

No, it doesn't explain a thing. higher wages for union workers means lower wages for non-union workers. In any given year, and economy can only produce a given quantity of goods and services. Unions can increase their share of what is produced, but they don't increase the total quantity of what is produced. That quantity may increase from year to year, but not as a result of anything unions do. In fact, unions are positively harmful for the growth of an economy.

Your theory requires that union activity increases the total output of the American economy. That theory is absurd on its face.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone has the right to bargain individually or collectively but an employer does not have to accept it if he doesn't want to.

And anyone who walks off a job does not have the right to keep that job. period.

What union goons mean by "collective bargaining rights" is the right of union goons to force employers to bargain only with their union and no one else. That means no rights for anyone who isn't a union member.

The term is actually an oxymoron.

Employers should be forced to bargain with the workers. If not than people will be screwed by the employers.

no one should be forced to enter into a contract with anyone. if people don't like their employer then they can quit

 

[bripat9643]

What union goons mean by "collective bargaining rights" is the right of union goons to force employers to bargain only with their union and no one else. That means no rights for anyone who isn't a union member.

The term is actually an oxymoron.

Employers should be forced to bargain with the workers. If not than people will be screwed by the employers.

Bunk. Although some employers will try things like that, smart employers treat their employees right. The market for skill labor is competitive. Employers who want the best talent will pay competitive wages and provide a good work environment. There are many corporations that became successful largely because they were able to hire and retain the best talent. Standard Oil is a classic example.

Of course, if you're a slug who never acquires any skill other than how to push a broom, then you are likely to get "screwed." In other words, you'll get what you deserve, which is nothing.

 

[jhc1983]

What union goons mean by "collective bargaining rights" is the right of union goons to force employers to bargain only with their union and no one else. That means no rights for anyone who isn't a union member.

The term is actually an oxymoron.

Employers should be forced to bargain with the workers. If not than people will be screwed by the employers.

Bunk. Although some employers will try things like that, smart employers treat their employees right. The market for skill labor is competitive. Employers who want the best talent will pay competitive wages and provide a good work environment. There are many corporations that became successful largely because they were able to hire and retain the best talent. Standard Oil is a classic example.

Of course, if you're a slug who never acquires any skill other than how to push a broom, then you are likely to get "screwed." In other words, you'll get what you deserve, which is nothing.

This did not happen until the unions were allowed into the workplace

Everything you take for granted in the workplace was fought for by the unions
Now, people are attempting to destroy what gave them a voice in the workplace

 

[The Rabbi]

What union goons mean by "collective bargaining rights" is the right of union goons to force employers to bargain only with their union and no one else. That means no rights for anyone who isn't a union member.

The term is actually an oxymoron.

Employers should be forced to bargain with the workers. If not than people will be screwed by the employers.

no one should be forced to enter into a contract with anyone. if people don't like their employer then they can quit

Libs would rather employees screw employers than vice versa.

Me personally, everything should be a free negotiation between private parties, no outside interference or coercion.

 

[syrenn]

Anyone has the right to bargain individually or collectively but an employer does not have to accept it if he doesn't want to.

And anyone who walks off a job does not have the right to keep that job. period.

What union goons mean by "collective bargaining rights" is the right of union goons to force employers to bargain only with their union and no one else. That means no rights for anyone who isn't a union member.

The term is actually an oxymoron.

Employers should be forced to bargain with the workers. If not than people will be screwed by the employers.

forced? ...why?

if the employees walk of the job... they quit.

 

[syrenn]

This is a bit off topic but I saw Today that 13 Chrysler workers who got caught by a news crew drinking and smoking pot on their lunch break and were fired for it got there jobs back. Does anyone really think they deserved to get their jobs back after that? I know if I got caught doing that on my lunch hour I wouldn't get my job back.

and there in lays the problem.... you CANT fire anyone in a union. Period.

now these clowns should never have gotten their jobs back.