Should labor unions be disbanded?

Arctic49519 wrote:

There is union employment and "at-will" employment.
"At-will" workers can have their pay and/or benefits cut at any time.
"At-will" workers can be fired for any time without just cause. They can be fired for merely speaking their mind. There are only a few federal protections of unlawful discharge, those are racial/ethnic/handicap/gender discrimination, whistleblowers, and union organization. If an "at-will" worker is fired in violation of one of these federal protections, they almost always do not have the money to fight a court battle against the wealth of big business.
In "at-will" employment, nepotism and favoritism largely determine pay and job assignment. The uneven enforcement of rules, special people getting special favors, and you've all seen it before.
"At-will" workers do not have a CONTRACT like union workers.
"At-Will" workers do not have a grievance procedure or arbitration. They have no recourse against unfair practices by management.
"At-Will" workers do not have representation of stewards. A common bullying and intimidation practice in at-will places is to call a worker into an office all by themselves, only to be confronted with 3-4 members of management.
"At-will" employment is a horrible way to work.
Union is better.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a rather easy article which spells out everything in layman's terms vs economic jargon. If you would like me to find something more technical, I'd be more than happy to. Keep an open mind while reading this and you will begin to understand where many people get their anti-union views from (especially women, who, despite what you have said, are not protected by unions in comparison to thier male counterparts). There is also a bibliography at the end of this analysis which should provide more info. I encourage hnhmom to read this as well, as it may answer some of the 'but' questions you have posed.
http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/LaborUnion...

Judged:

1

1

1

hnhmom wrote:

i did read the article just now nadia, i guess i just have a hard time with certain things because i have not "experienced" it. i would need to read it when I have time to note certain points that yes could be correct or that i think are inaccurate accounts. in regard to that anyhow isnt it all about interpretation. you can read something and have a totally different interpretation then me, who would be correct?
our experience with the union has been good and positive. in fact my husband left a non union job to go and work for the union. his pay was only a dollar more per hour, benefits were less, so for everyone who is saying the payscale is way off from what we have seen that is just not true anymore.

Judged:

1

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
I read it. I don't really see anything in it that shows unions are awful, even as biased as it is.
I especially loved the part which says unions are the enemy of blacks because some union workers beat up a couple of black strikebreakers 97 years ago in 1911.(I'm pretty sure they beat up the white strikebreakers too)
This biased article you posted was produced by Morgan O. Reynolds, who was the US Dept of Labor chief economist during G W Bush's first term. Did you really think Bush is going to appoint someone who is not biased in favor of the right-wing big business agenda?
Reynolds info is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds
What you posted is not proof that unions are bad, it is propaganda.

Arctic49519 wrote:

There is union employment and "at-will" employment.
"At-will" workers can have their pay and/or benefits cut at any time.
"At-will" workers can be fired for any time without just cause. They can be fired for merely speaking their mind. There are only a few federal protections of unlawful discharge, those are racial/ethnic/handicap/gender discrimination, whistleblowers, and union organization. If an "at-will" worker is fired in violation of one of these federal protections, they almost always do not have the money to fight a court battle against the wealth of big business.
In "at-will" employment, nepotism and favoritism largely determine pay and job assignment. The uneven enforcement of rules, special people getting special favors, and you've all seen it before.
"At-will" workers do not have a CONTRACT like union workers.
"At-Will" workers do not have a grievance procedure or arbitration. They have no recourse against unfair practices by management.
"At-Will" workers do not have representation of stewards. A common bullying and intimidation practice in at-will places is to call a worker into an office all by themselves, only to be confronted with 3-4 members of management.
"At-will" employment is a horrible way to work.
Union is better.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
I read it. I don't really see anything in it that shows unions are awful, even as biased as it is.
I especially loved the part which says unions are the enemy of blacks because some union workers beat up a couple of black strikebreakers 97 years ago in 1911.(I'm pretty sure they beat up the white strikebreakers too)
This biased article you posted was produced by Morgan O. Reynolds, who was the US Dept of Labor chief economist during G W Bush's first term. Did you really think Bush is going to appoint someone who is not biased in favor of the right-wing big business agenda?
Reynolds info is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds
What you posted is not proof that unions are bad, it is propaganda.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
I read it. I don't really see anything in it that shows unions are awful, even as biased as it is.
I especially loved the part which says unions are the enemy of blacks because some union workers beat up a couple of black strikebreakers 97 years ago in 1911.(I'm pretty sure they beat up the white strikebreakers too)
This biased article you posted was produced by Morgan O. Reynolds, who was the US Dept of Labor chief economist during G W Bush's first term. Did you really think Bush is going to appoint someone who is not biased in favor of the right-wing big business agenda?
Reynolds info is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds
What you posted is not proof that unions are bad, it is propaganda.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, I really don't expect to change your mind, b/c to tell you the truth, you seem to be rather closed minded. Hopefully some people read this and get an understanding of the facts other than your biased opinions.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, I really don't expect to change your mind, b/c to tell you the truth, you seem to be rather closed minded. Hopefully some people read this and get an understanding of the facts other than your biased opinions.

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
I also would like to see your info...are you related to Mark by ant chance? So far you've both are misinformed. Your jealousy is also showing.

Judged:

1

1

1

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
okay since i am not as savvy on this kind of stuff as most of you, this is what i got out of the article as well.

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
your biased opinions are many. It's not nice to cram your belief down someone's throat.you seem to be rather closed minded to say the least. Go away. You feel like a hemmoroid.

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Nadia is not either, just trying to fool you.

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Nadia is not either, just trying to fool you.