Why labor unions can't win

[Political Junky]

Today in America, unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice. I have no use for those -- regardless of their political party -- who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when organized labor was huddled, almost as a hapless mass. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.—Dwight D. Eisenhower
<

Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours, and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor.&#8212;John F. Kennedy
<


If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.&#8212;Abraham Lincoln

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 superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.&#8212;Abraham Lincoln

 

[Kosh]

Unions did have a purpose once, even if it was a place for illegal practices to funnel their money through.

 

[The Rabbi]

oday in America, unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice. I have no use for those -- regardless of their political party -- who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when organized labor was huddled, almost as a hapless mass. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.—Dwight D. Eisenhower
<

Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours, and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor.—John F. Kennedy
<


If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.—Abraham Lincoln

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 superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.—Abraham Lincoln

Unions suck. And so do those who support them. -The Rabbi.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You have an entire political party that believes in "prosperity through lower wages".

I believe in the free market. I look at some of the healthiest eras and stretches of comparatively low unemployment: Reagan ('83-'87), Clinton ('95-'00), and Bush II ('02-'06). Employers must necessarily compete for employees through higher wages and benefits.... Not because of some Government mandates in a constricting or flat economy that keeps unemployment high or forces workers out of the workforce. This is simply squeezing water out of a rock.

 

[JoeB131]

Unions eventually stab you in the back.

They sell you a good game and for a while they get away with winning you unearned wages, pensions, vacations and numerous other unearned perks, but the inevitable always happens:

They negotiate and demand until you have no job left, while the union executives dine and wine with the President and pad their bank accounts.

And that is the ultimate betrayal.

Yeah, because the 1%ers will give you those things unbidden...

Unions have failed to keep up with the times, and have failed to stress their important to average working people.

That said, we are going to get to a breaking point where the wealthy have drivenwages down so far that people can't cope, even working two or three jobs.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The need for unions has never been greater. As unfair pay issues have boiled over and onto the national stage, the role of a union to fight for worker rights has never been greater. Unfortunately, as what corporations do to their workers has become so public, I think peoples' impression is that worker-rights and fair pay is now something unnecessary to fight for as with unions. The opposite in fact is the case as the recent fast food minimum wage issue illustrated. And as American Wal-Mart workers continues to show as on Thanksgiving when Wal-Mart's idea of helping workers was bins of donated food and helping them apply for Food Stamps. Whereas Wal-Marts in Europe are all unionized.

Union? Yes!

 

[FJO]

Auto workers in Tennessee (emphasis on the word workers, i.e. not potential union freeloaders) amply and clearly demonstrated how much unions are needed.

 

[JoeB131]

Auto workers in Tennessee (emphasis on the word workers, i.e. not potential union freeloaders) amply and clearly demonstrated how much unions are needed.

Well, no, not really.

The thing is, in Germany and Japan, those auto companies are unionized in their own countries, and most of the HR policies and procedures copy those of a unionized shop.

So the union comes in and says, "We can get you better wages and better working conditions" and the workers say, "Well, Volkswagen is already doing that because that's the kind of company they are."

VW chief executive to get 20% pay cut - The Denver Post

Volkswagen AG's supervisory board plans to trim Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn's pay for 2012 despite the automaker's stellar performance.

According to the magazine Der Spiegel, Winterkorn's pay for 2012 will be reduced to 14 million euros, or roughly $19 million, 20 percent below what he earned in 2011.

It said Winterkorn, head of Volkswagen's management board, had suggested the pay cut himself as the automaker prepares to open wage talks with VW's unions.

And 47% of the workers in TN wanted a union. Not that Volkwagen would have a problem it that either way.

 

[Wildman]

when i was a kid, my Dad was on strike or laid off due to unions fucking over the working man/woman.., did the union buy my shoes, clothes, food or any of my needs.., FUCK NO !!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Private sector unions are fine if the workers want them. Public sector unions should be illegal.

Your view is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.

How can you deny any worker's desire for 'more'?



No....the flaw is in the corrupt politician who sees an increase in his votes if he gives away taxpayer funds.
That is bribery.

And it seems that the pols have been able to mislead you into blaming those who are doing no more than what David Copperfield did, asking for more porridge.

So porridge in the pot in like vote buying today?


Did you know that tax breaks to attract business is a giveaway of taxpayers dough?

How nice to find that I never have to change my opinion of you, as you always manage to post drivel.

1. Politicians should be mandated to carry personal indemnity insurance so that when union contracts that they authorize break the bank, they are responsible.

2. Details of impending contracts should be on the ballot of the soonest election.


That's me: problem solver.




...and...the law should be changed to make it legal to spray paint graffiti on illegally parked cars.


...and one more: paychecks should be reversed between public school teachers and lawyers.



...and the number eleven should, henceforth, be called onety-one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have no problem with unions and unionism.

1. Covered by freedom of assembly in the Constitution

2. They serve as part of the checks and balances necessary in a market economy

3. If any object to public employee unions, take it up with the corrupt politicians who sign away the public fisc.

Private sector unions are fine if the workers want them. Public sector unions should be illegal.

Your view is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.

How can you deny any worker's desire for 'more'?



No....the flaw is in the corrupt politician who sees an increase in his votes if he gives away taxpayer funds.
That is bribery.

And it seems that the pols have been able to mislead you into blaming those who are doing no more than what David Copperfield did, asking for more porridge.

That was Oliver Twist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We're a nation in decline, and so of course a great amount of that decline is going to land on the doorstep of the American worker.

You like your two-earner household, where both mother and father have to work to make ends meet, where money issues are the number one family value day in and day out, where working to see that your kids do better than you did is replaced by hoping that they might do as well,

well, keep this up. Cheer it on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have no problem with unions and unionism.

1. Covered by freedom of assembly in the Constitution

2. They serve as part of the checks and balances necessary in a market economy

3. If any object to public employee unions, take it up with the corrupt politicians who sign away the public fisc.

Private sector unions are fine if the workers want them. Public sector unions should be illegal.

Excerpt of a letter sent to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937.

_______________________________________________

My dear Mr. Steward:


As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

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.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

_________________________________

Agreed.

_____________________

LINK

A couple of points, T....

1. It was another Democrat who allowed unionization of public employees.


2. In NYC, public unions operate under the Taylor Law. It works like this: the city collects union dues per paycheck, and sends the money to the unions.

If any strike, they forfeit this process, called 'check-off'....and would have to appeal to the members to send in their dues by themselves.
Know what that means? They don't get the dues.

There are more serious penalties, too....jail for union leaders, loss of tenure/seniority....


3. Back to my premise: it is the politicians who need be held responsible for give-aways.

 

[editec]

Is it just a coincidence that those graphs in the OP are eerily similar to wage stagnation and income mobility graphs for the same period. The Oligarchs are the only ones winning. Pitting the middle class against each other while they enjoy massive proffits.

There is no wage stagnation. It is a canard invented by the left to feed class warfare.

When all else fails try the BIG LIE.

It worked for Hitler, after all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is it just a coincidence that those graphs in the OP are eerily similar to wage stagnation and income mobility graphs for the same period. The Oligarchs are the only ones winning. Pitting the middle class against each other while they enjoy massive proffits.

There is no wage stagnation. It is a canard invented by the left to feed class warfare.

When all else fails try the BIG LIE.

It worked for Hitler, after all.

Godwin's Law is now in effect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We're a nation in decline, and so of course a great amount of that decline is going to land on the doorstep of the American worker.

You like your two-earner household, where both mother and father have to work to make ends meet, where money issues are the number one family value day in and day out, where working to see that your kids do better than you did is replaced by hoping that they might do as well,

well, keep this up. Cheer it on.

"You like your two-earner household, where both mother and father have to work..."

Hold the federal government to the enumerated powers, and this will result in far lower costs, and, therefore, lower taxes...


It is taxes that prevent families from becoming wealthy....thank you, Democrats......

The rich already own stuff...that is not federally taxed.
Only one's earnings are.

 

[RandomVariable]

Is this crossing the line?

[ame=http://youtu.be/n_fSokLOcNI]Corker says UAW Playing Word Games - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Spiderman]

We're a nation in decline, and so of course a great amount of that decline is going to land on the doorstep of the American worker.

You like your two-earner household, where both mother and father have to work to make ends meet, where money issues are the number one family value day in and day out, where working to see that your kids do better than you did is replaced by hoping that they might do as well,

well, keep this up. Cheer it on.

Plenty of people live well and even raise a family on one income.

The problem is that doing so means sacrifice and planning; two things that most Americans refuse to do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unions eventually stab you in the back.

They sell you a good game and for a while they get away with winning you unearned wages, pensions, vacations and numerous other unearned perks, but the inevitable always happens:

They negotiate and demand until you have no job left, while the union executives dine and wine with the President and pad their bank accounts.

And that is the ultimate betrayal.

Yeah, because the 1%ers will give you those things unbidden...

Unions have failed to keep up with the times, and have failed to stress their important to average working people.

That said, we are going to get to a breaking point where the wealthy have drivenwages down so far that people can't cope, even working two or three jobs.

Wages are higher now than ever. Fail.
The 1%ers (whoever they are) do not give things. No one gives things, unless it's charity, which you seem to equate with jobs. Managers pay what they need to pay in order to attract the talent they need for the job. The market forces wages, not gov't. You haven't figured that out yet because you've never done an honest day's work in your life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We're a nation in decline, and so of course a great amount of that decline is going to land on the doorstep of the American worker.

You like your two-earner household, where both mother and father have to work to make ends meet, where money issues are the number one family value day in and day out, where working to see that your kids do better than you did is replaced by hoping that they might do as well,

well, keep this up. Cheer it on.

Plenty of people live well and even raise a family on one income.

The problem is that doing so means sacrifice and planning; two things that most Americans refuse to do.

Your refusal to accept reality is not my concern.

btw, Unions have been declining and losing power in this country since the 1960's. My question to all of you who are so happy with that...

when does it start getting better for the American worker?