What do you think of Unions?

[ILikeStuff]

Personally I despise them. I see them as encouraging mediocrity in the workplace and driving up the cost of goods. What do you think?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

The first one. Anyone who says they aren't necessary is a moron. How can you possibly say they aren't necessary anymore? That statement is based on the fact that workers are generally treated well now. Now why would that be? Imagine the instability of the economy if people were laid off every time a company started making reduced profits. Normal up and down cycles would be amplified, and we could be in a depression right now, IMO.

 

[pyonir]

seeing as my mom works in a factory that has a union, i like them. they have tried to screw her over with benefits and without the union presence she probably wouldn't be getting fair coverage. She just had surgery so i am glad she has a union that protects here interests.

 

[radioouman]

Unfortunately, if you are in a union job without a college education, then a union is the only way that you will make a decent living. Yes there are always urban legends of dock workers making $100,000 per year because they are in a union, but the average Joe doesn't.

The sad part is that most companies that have unions would be willing to give their employees good benefits and a decent salary. But unions force the companies to give union workers a lot of fringe benefits that drag on the company.

I don't like unions, but if a person can't make a decent salary otherwise, then I see a reason for them.

 

[hdeck]

they are bad.

 

[jemcam]

:| Hate them, have long outlived their usefulness. The union members all seem to think the companies or management will definitely screw them if the union doesn't exist. The only ones really benefitting from unions now are the union heads who are millionaires.

Pro or anti union people can also pretty much be split among party lines as well.

Edit: I agree they were needed 70 years ago, but ever since WWII they've just cost us all money.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
The first one. Anyone who says they aren't necessary is a moron. How can you possibly say they aren't necessary anymore? That statement is based on the fact that workers are generally treated well now. Now why would that be?

Yes they are treated well now, regardless of whether or not they are unionized, so, what purpose do they serve NOW? I say they have already served their purpose and are no longer necessary in many of the segments of the economy.

 

[Queasy]

I like unions that work with business owners while protecting the rights of the workers. That is the ideal situation there. And yes, that does require business owner willing to work with unions as well.

What I don't like is unions that want to squeeze the everloving life out a business no matter what the consequences. They aren't doing the workers they represent any favors when they drive a company into bankruptcy forcing them to lay-off the workers.

 

[notfred]

I understand thier purpose, and agree ith them in theory, but they're corrupted and abused to the point that I despise them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Depends on the Union and if the State is a Right to Work State.

 

[hevnsnt]

This is a great example of the old saying: There are two types of people....

Being that my father was management, I am against them.. Just how I was raised I guess...

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Depends on the Union and if the State is a Right to Work State.

What do you mean by "Right to Work"? Please explain the concept.

Google is my friend

Right to Work

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: notfred
I understand thier purpose, and agree ith them in theory, but they're corrupted and abused to the point that I despise them.

Pretty much the same here. I've grew up right next to some of the biggest UAW shops in the nation and their arrogance left a very bad taste in my mouth. I also see a terrible abuse of power shown in hospitals by *some* specific unions, as well as the bane of public education - teachers unions. I see more abuse than advancement coming from unions, but that doesn't mean that there aren't good unions out there. I just have yet to see one.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Depends on the Union and if the State is a Right to Work State.

What do you mean by "Right to Work"? Please explain the concept.

It means that Non Union Workers can work alongside Union Workers.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
The first one. Anyone who says they aren't necessary is a moron. How can you possibly say they aren't necessary anymore? That statement is based on the fact that workers are generally treated well now. Now why would that be?

Yes they are treated well now, regardless of whether or not they are unionized, so, what purpose do they serve NOW? I say they have already served their purpose and are no longer necessary in many of the segments of the economy.

In some/most fields workers are treated well without Unions.

The pros of unionization far outweigh the cons.

 

[HokieESM]

From what I hear from friends in Detroit about modern unionization, I think its a chicken and the egg argument. Some large corporations have virtually zero respect and compassion for their workers--thus the unions are needed to help deal with corrupt management, who is frequently trying to squeeze more productivity from employees for less pay. If unions only went this far, there would be no problems. BUT, some unions (or some unions and some times) tend to want to do the opposite--squeeze as much money, benefits, and job security out of employers while lowering productivity and working hours.

This is probably one of those unfortunate situations where people are using massive corrupt organizations to fight massive corrupt organizations. Its a damn shame that there aren't more compassionate employers and employees who perform their jobs with a sense of pride.

 

[tcsenter]

The first one. Anyone who says they aren't necessary is a moron. How can you possibly say they aren't necessary anymore? That statement is based on the fact that workers are generally treated well now. Now why would that be?

That would be because we have health and safety laws and regulations, civil liability, and because it makes good business sense to treat workers well.

You gotta love union supporters who parrot the standard union line that they alone are responsible for your working conditions, even if your employer isn't unionized. Hell, even if your employer is 200 miles away, in a completely different labor pool, in a region that is largely non-unionized, unions deserve all the credit because you're not being beaten at work. lol!

Like all socialist concepts, unions are fantastic in theory, corrupt and disposed to abuse in practice. There are some unions which seem to resist the militant union mentalities which cause companies to lock their doors and head for greener pasteurs, but they would probably be the exception.

Unionism in all likelihood served as a catalyst for better working conditions and the like, but these same gains were bound to have happened sooner or later, because what was happening with labor and industrialism at the beginning of the 20th century was really intolerable from a public policy standpoint and would not long be tolerated, with or without militant unionism.

 

[FuzzyBee]

I think unions, as a whole, have run their course and should be put out of their misery. Essentially, they are equivalent to legalized extortion. When I was in college, I worked a year at UPS. On orientation day, there was a point where all of the UPS supervisors and trainers left the room, and the Teamsters reps entered. They attempted to tell everybody that they had to join the union to work there - there was no option. They didn't really care for me refuting that, and not signing my "yellow dog". I tried not to smile when all of my coworkers got their first checks and realized that "union dues" took about half their money.

Trade unions, otoh, actually do good for their members.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
I think unions, as a whole, have run their course and should be put out of their misery. Essentially, they are equivalent to legalized extortion. When I was in college, I worked a year at UPS. On orientation day, there was a point where all of the UPS supervisors and trainers left the room, and the Teamsters reps entered. They attempted to tell everybody that they had to join the union to work there - there was no option. They didn't really care for me refuting that, and not signing my "yellow dog". I tried not to smile when all of my coworkers got their first checks and realized that "union dues" took about half their money.

Trade unions, otoh, actually do good for their members.

Same situation here. I worked as a loader for a couple of months back in about '83 or so. They really put the pressure on you to join. It was like they were asking for a charity donation or something. It's not like my job situation would change if I did or didn't join.

 

[Ferocious]

Unions are generally a good thing. And are generally a very democratic entity.

Workers can actually have a voice at work when they act as a collective unit. For fair wages and to avoid frivelous discharges, etc.

Without unions......you end up with a marketplace where workers are constantly paid the least possible wage.....instead of the fairest possible wage.

Corporations hate when people have the ability to have a real voice.

 

[tcsenter]

They attempted to tell everybody that they had to join the union to work there - there was no option. They didn't really care for me refuting that, and not signing my "yellow dog". I tried not to smile when all of my coworkers got their first checks and realized that "union dues" took about half their money.

You must have worked in a Right To Work state. In a complusory union state, you have no choice. No union, no job.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

The only prob with Unions is they also protect people who should be fired. Good workers get laid off because bad workers have more time in. I have a ton of union horror stories but most are too long to talk about here. Garden hose hookups have to be attached by a plumber, lightbulb can't be changed except by electitions, a 20lb part takes 3 hours to move cause they have to get a 50 ton crane to move it. A 20lb part can't be lifted of a truck by the truckdriver because a forklift has to be brought over to do it.
A friend of mine was a non union on a job site with union workers, someone took a piss in the water container that the non unions used to drink from, when he talked to the foreman the respnse was " Guess they didn't have to take a crap"

I used to work for a large unionized company and the union actually hog-tied us to the point where it would be lowering our ability to do our work. When layoffs came my boss wanted to keep me over other people but couldn't do to the fact they had more senority. At one point they may have, and may still, be useful but I have seen more abuse because of it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

They attempted to tell everybody that they had to join the union to work there - there was no option. They didn't really care for me refuting that, and not signing my "yellow dog". I tried not to smile when all of my coworkers got their first checks and realized that "union dues" took about half their money.

You must have worked in a Right To Work state. In a complusory union state, you have no choice. No union, no job.

Which would suck. I believe that one should always have the right too choice. Unfortunately that usually isn't the case with Construction Unions. While the Companies can hire non Union Workers, the Unions would pull all their members if they did so. However, those companies wouldn't pay the non Union Workers the same wages and benefits (at least from my experience in the Building trade here in Ca.)

In Areas where there isn't a strong Union Presence the Carpenters make about a third as much as their Union Counterparts without any benefits yet the cost of building the structures (Homes in most cases) cost the same. Though the cost of homes in those smaller communities is cheaper, that's primarily due to the cost of land being cheaper along with the local taxes. It's great for the Building Contractor and the Developer but it sucks for the Worker.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Unions are generally a good thing. And are generally a very democratic entity.

Workers can actually have a voice at work when they act as a collective unit. For fair wages and to avoid frivelous discharges, etc.

Without unions......you end up with a marketplace where workers are constantly paid the least possible wage.....instead of the fairest possible wage.

Corporations hate when people have the ability to have a real voice.

Should the workers have more of a voice than the company they work for?

Without unions, I think that the only way you are going to have workers "paid the least possible wage" is when the economy isn't doing all that well. If the economy is doing well, employees have a habit of skipping out on their company to get higher wages. That doesn't sound to fair to me, either.

Who determines what is a fair wage? OTOH, who determines what is a fair amount of work that should be put in for that wage? I see the unions to be a major contributor to the decline of the airline industry right now. When airlines were doing well, unions insisted that their workers (and, through dues, the unions themselves) receive higher wages. Where are the unions now? For the most part, they aren't willing to back down off the payrates when the airline economy is in a slump. They also don't think it's fair for the airlines to get rid of some employees. Sooner or later, companies are going to break.

 

[Zebo]

Unions are always a good thing and very much in the spirit of democracy. I think every worker should unionize. More inportantly Unions are a workers only protection against exploitation by those who have capital.