Should labor unions be disbanded?

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
And contrary to what amny expect of this country the Constitution DOES NOT refer to ANY rights to business AT ALL. Whereas it refer to the rights of the people in the Preamble; "to promote the general Welfare" of We the People.
Other than freedom of the Press. And that was to protect the rights of the People's interests, NOT business interests.

I can show you proof, graphs, literature and the like that shows unequivocally that unions do not "promote the general Welfare of We the People". If you take just an intro economics course, you will see were and why your logic is faulty. Go to Jstor or the American Economics Journal (or any other econ journal for that matter) and just type in 'Unions' to see the thought process behind what we are saying. That's what we should do.....have everybody who supports a union attend an economics explanation about the downfalls.

Arctic49519 wrote:

Labor unions have their foundation in our Constitutional right to assemble and free association.
Banding together for mutual protection and benefit is more than just a Constitutional right, it is a human right.
Forcibly disbanding unions would require the abolition of workers' rights, Constitutional rights, and human rights.
I'm afraid I'm not quite ready for fascism yet.

I don't believe that the US will fall into a 'fascist state' for relieving itself of unions. Equating our future to that of Germany's Hitler past or Italy's Mussolini is absurd.

Ken Luxton wrote:

Slackers, punching in tardy, come on that retarded!! GM has 40+ vice presidents making 7 figures. Thats got to be at least 3,000 per hour! What is the matter with you stupid idiots??? Union guy gets $35 an hour sweeping the floor- So whats the problem with it?? They are paying $3000 for a vice president to work four six hour days!! Forums like this tell how stupid and back stabbing Americans really are! Stupid backstabbing confidential disloyal people. George Washington's lot would have hung every one of you Bozo's !! You people are Willingly Ignorant! Dumb Donkeys **** would do justice. There is no words in the dictionary to describe the repulsiveness of you union busting people exectutive paycheck lovers.

How do you think CEO's and VP's got their jobs? They didn't just fall out of the sky and land in a high paying job. They educated themselves, many with Master's degrees and worked their tails off for 60 - 80 hours a week for many years to get where they are. They are driven to succeed.

You sound like a young guy who feels "entitled".
News flash! Nobody is entitled to anything. You have to earn it. You wouldn't last 2 weeks on the job without the union to protect you with an attitude like that. Janitors at $35 an hour are a joke. Any idiot off the street can show up every day and do that. It doesn't take any training except to show him which end of the broom to use.

Yes, some executives are overpaid, it's not a perfect world. But as I said above, most executives worked very hard for a long time to get where they are.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
From it's peak of 1.5 million in 1978 down to 622,603 as November 2006. Let's see 1.5 million minus 622,603 equals 877,397, and that's in 30 years. Still above it's post WWII low of 557,099.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...
Still doesn't look like a 1 million drop to me. And hey, over the last 30 years. I wonder how many companies have gone under in that time.

And GR is third on the list to get nuked. Never made a mistake before, SIB?

can someone verify that it sweeping a floor pays 35/hour. i find this very hard to believe. my husband is in a union and it has its good and bad. at this point the good outways the bad.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
And contrary to what amny expect of this country the Constitution DOES NOT refer to ANY rights to business AT ALL. Whereas it refer to the rights of the people in the Preamble; "to promote the general Welfare" of We the People.
Other than freedom of the Press. And that was to protect the rights of the People's interests, NOT business interests.

And based on our 3 branches of gov't with the checks and balances and the Founders hate of large, centralized gov't, why can't "to promote the general welfare" mean that gov't stays small and stays out of the way of the people.

I think that is a much more accurate interpretation than yours, SIB. You just choose to understand it from a socialist's point of view.

Josh wrote:

<quoted text>
Corporations are protected by the Constitution because Corporations are made up of individuals with individual rights. Just as it does not say 'workers have these rights', it also doesn't say 'employees have these rights'. That would be socialism/communism, not democracy. The Constitution allows for free trade, and does not place restrictions on it.
The Ninth Amendment says concisely: The Enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If the Constitution -doesn't- grant a right specifically, it doesn't mean it doesn't protect that right. While this is disputable in things like abortion (where there are several rights being debated), in the free market, it is indisputable.
You can move to a country that has the government controlling business, but you probably will want to move back quick. The only countries its ever worked in have very little in common with us, including basic human rights and freedom. Lets not forget that Communist nations have killed 100,000,000 people in the last hundred years. The government is no less or more corrupt than businesses, but it is a far scarier and threatening force, because it can do what it wants and get away with it.

You have to understand SIB. He\she picks out phrases that suit him\her and ignore other facts.

i would like to ask just a general question...those opposed to a union. if you had the oppurtunity to make say 20/hr at a non union company or 30/hr at a union company doing the exact same job, which would you choose and why.

hnhmom wrote:

can someone verify that it sweeping a floor pays 35/hour. i find this very hard to believe. my husband is in a union and it has its good and bad. at this point the good outways the bad.

I believe it's just an exageration. It really doesn't matter. The fact remains that the union is overpaying jobs like that. Too many nitpickers on here.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe that the US will fall into a 'fascist state' for relieving itself of unions. Equating our future to that of Germany's Hitler past or Italy's Mussolini is absurd.

Short of re-writing or suspending the Constitution, labor unions will always exist to protect people.

In order to forcibly disband ( or you call it "relieving") would require eliminating people's rights under the pretext that it is for the "good of the state." This is the very definition of fascism. No thanks.

If you don't like unions, don't join one, but don't strip my rights away and say it's for my own good.
If you want to work in Kathy Lee Gifford sweatshop conditions, go right ahead. I'll pass.

hnhmom wrote:

can someone verify that it sweeping a floor pays 35/hour. i find this very hard to believe. my husband is in a union and it has its good and bad. at this point the good outways the bad.

It's essentially something between an "urban legend" and right-wing anti-worker propaganda. There are no $35/hr union broom pushers.

Unions had their place. I know some companies that still NEED a union. I know far more that do not need a union.

As far as blaming unions for the downturn of the big 3 its more then just unions. Unions had nothing to do with the cars becoming over priced gum wrappers. Yes labor costs HELPED lead to the prices, but so did mid level and upper level (mis)management.

The UAW and their bargaing tactics, coupled with their backing of less the acceptable behavior on the part of their members has gone a long way towards killing the opinion of unions. But every union isnt the UAW or the Teamsters.

im not trying to nitpick i am trying to understand...i do not have much experience with the union only what my husband tells me and at this point i do not see an issue with it. and contrary to what people may think people aren't getting paid what they used to. As stated in a previous forum my husbands job was previously run by 4 different people making 10/hr more then what he makes. how does anyone then think that the union helps people make so much money anymore. in our case it is simply not true.

Old Rocker wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe it's just an exageration. It really doesn't matter. The fact remains that the union is overpaying jobs like that. Too many nitpickers on here.

Need to look at more then just the dollar per hour.

Personally I had problems working in a union shop. I hated the phrase " not my job, wait for so and so ". Shutting down a line because a line nut needed to be tightened and I had to wait for a pipe fitter just didnt set well with me.

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
And GR is third on the list to get nuked. Never made a mistake before, SIB?

Ya I have. Never set out to demean those who make MISTAKES though. Have you?

Without a doubt, unions were, at the start of the industrial revolution, key in ensuring the well being, safety and fairness for employees. However, there are many laws in place, thanks in large part to the work done by unions of the past, to ensure quality standards are met on a daily basis. Because of this, I tend to believe unions should be disbanded and the enforcement of laws should be stressed.

In my professional experience with unions, I know that there were many times when the employees were hurt by them. We were not able to pay based on experience. I interviewed and offerred postions to potential staff who would have been amazing, but they ultimately turned down the postion because of the pay scale.

I also think that (and this is tied to my belief in the need for universal health care) that the focus on health care benefits drive up the costs to employers substantially. In fact, studies have been done (I'll have to research a bit to find the exact reference, but these were sociological studies referenced by Chomsky in "Profit over People" and/or "Rogue States") that have the cost of health care listed as a primary reason that many companies move overseas. Not only are they paying lower wages, but they do not have to provide the health care benefits. Even with the cost partially passed on to employees, it continues to cost a whole lot of money. This is incentive for companies to go elsewhere so they can pay lower wages and not pay health care, along with all the other tax breaks, etc. The ones that stay here end up passing the cost on to the consumer and then we end up faced with a situation like we have today. Stagnate wages, loss of jobs (nation wide, not just Michigan), increased unemployment, general economic decline, increased agitation and hate between members of society and a widening gap between upper class and lower class with the disappearance of the middle class.

For the record, I do NOT advocate companies moving to other countries. I think this is an issue that needs to be seriously addressed.

IMHO of course :~)

hnhmom wrote:

i would like to ask just a general question...those opposed to a union. if you had the oppurtunity to make say 20/hr at a non union company or 30/hr at a union company doing the exact same job, which would you choose and why.

You've made the point even clearer. There really can't be that type of wage discrepancy between the same job. If this type of wage differential exists, then the end product of the unionized position will cost more vs the non-unionized. If the same product costs more, consumers will buy the cheapest of the two and the unionized company will dissolve. This is why unions, such as the UAW, monopolizes the employee pool so that this wage/price differential doesn't exist. People are rational...they would likely choose to work for 30$ vs 20$ if given the opportunity, but the corporation would soon go out of business in this scenerio of perfect information. It's interesting to note that people are also self selecting. The person that needs the union will work for the union. Usually, these are people with either a high school education or less.(This isn't my opinion...it can be backed up by data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) The person that does not need the union will not work for the union. This is often a point that is stressed (or atleast should be) in an econometrics course.

I think unions have outlasted their genuine purpose to help the workers in the USA, they have become too big for their britches, they are collecting BIG money for the jobs they are doing and have begun {years ago}to be a debitrament to our economy , It is outragous that workers are paid $ 35.oo per hr to stand around in these auto plants, when the person that makes their jobs possible gets $8-15. an hr.With much less in beifits. Our economy has come to what it is today because of the automotive companies paying such high wages, pushed by the unions so they get their share out of the employee. Old Henry Ford would turn over in his grave to see how much these employees and head brass make today..Shame on them!!

hnhmom wrote:

im not trying to nitpick i am trying to understand...i do not have much experience with the union only what my husband tells me and at this point i do not see an issue with it. and contrary to what people may think people aren't getting paid what they used to. As stated in a previous forum my husbands job was previously run by 4 different people making 10/hr more then what he makes. how does anyone then think that the union helps people make so much money anymore. in our case it is simply not true.

Here's the issue: In empirical work, it is a stylized fact that a person who works for a union will make more than their exact counterpart. This means that if you take two people, one who works for a union and one who doesn't, who have the same human capital (schooling, general experience and technical experience), are the same gender, race,(I know this shouldn't matter, but it does oddly enough), married, no children (or same amount of children), ect. ect. the person in the union will make more than the free market participant. This lack of effeciency on behalf of the union participant causes artificial increases in prices for end products, as well as artificial increases in demand for a select group. I'm not going to go into all the economic implications of this b/c it takes too long....lol...I havn't had breakfast yet. You should read up on it though and educate yourself if you are really interested. Once you see the graphs and logic, it makes alot of sense with respect to how it negatively affects the Macro economy.

Ionia 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Need to look at more then just the dollar per hour.
Personally I had problems working in a union shop. I hated the phrase " not my job, wait for so and so ". Shutting down a line because a line nut needed to be tightened and I had to wait for a pipe fitter just didnt set well with me.

Another great example of the inefficiencies of the union hnhmom. The severe 'specialization' of workers is not generally observed in non-unionized environments.