Should labor unions be disbanded?

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't cram anything down your throat, we've had no physical contact. Read an economics book and gain the knowledge that you should have as a participant in society.

Nadia i am not trying to bash you and yes while knowledge is a great thing it seems you take all of your answers from a book, where is your real life experience with things. again do you beleive everything you read as truth just because an author or professor said it is.

hnhmom wrote:

nadia i know this is not about this but black and white does not always answer every question. also just because something is written doesnt mean you should take it as truth. people bend things to fit what they want you to believe.

I posted these things so that you would have more information as you said you were at work and didn't have the proper time to look things up. I hope you can read into this paper and develop your own questions and stances rather than listening to me or the other two that are posting. Looking at the big picture here is crucial, not just applying what your husband relays from his own company.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO that's funny!

It sounds to me that you and Union are threatened by the intelligence of a woman. I have to ask myself, if my name on this forum was Steve or Mike, would I be taken more seriously? This is still a common problem in our society unfortunately. Men are used to the subserviance of a female.....which with my generation is thankfully declining.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sure you didn't even read the article, you merely skimmed it. If you had read it, you would have had more interesting points to discuss. The writer is a trained economist.....what were you trained in again? Like I said, there are theories and mathematical equations to back up what I'm saying. What do you have? You have nothing scientific to say the least, just your own opinion. I have drawn my opinions from concrete evidence.

Can you appreciate it would take as much space here as the article takes to rebut the points that do cry out for rebuttal?

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Nadia i am not trying to bash you and yes while knowledge is a great thing it seems you take all of your answers from a book, where is your real life experience with things. again do you beleive everything you read as truth just because an author or professor said it is.

Absolutely not. I question many things as true or fictitious and produce my own research on the subject. I have had much real life experience and have worked like a dog just like the rest of you. I busted my but working 70+ hours on salary for years until I returned to school. There are two sides to this debate, even in the field of economics. However, through my own experiences and readings of the respective material, I find that unions are not at all cracked up to what people say. I know you're not trying to bash me. You're the only one infact! I just hope that you, like me, think for yourself. Just don't be closed minded....that's all I ask :) How's work going by the way?

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you appreciate it would take as much space here as the article takes to rebut the points that do cry out for rebuttal?

Just start it off one at a time. Who knows, you may learn something :)

As a union member for about 40 yrs now I can tell you folks that without unions most folks would be a whole lot worse off but wouldn't know it. The rich would be richer the supv and managers would be meaner and even less fair than they are now. I've worked in non union jobs before and witnessed how the favorites, whether relatives or more attractive and better at brown nosing, were treated better than those outside the clique. They get the raises and the promotions and can talk and bull all day while everyone else had to work harder.
So if you really believe that management is fair and your working harder will pay dividends then good for you. Just wait til Jr or the easy girl with the hots gets the window office while you move to the hallway.
Sucker

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely not. I question many things as true or fictitious and produce my own research on the subject. I have had much real life experience and have worked like a dog just like the rest of you. I busted my but working 70+ hours on salary for years until I returned to school. There are two sides to this debate, even in the field of economics. However, through my own experiences and readings of the respective material, I find that unions are not at all cracked up to what people say. I know you're not trying to bash me. You're the only one infact! I just hope that you, like me, think for yourself. Just don't be closed minded....that's all I ask :) How's work going by the way?

lol work is work i would much rather be a stay at home mom to be honest, which i think they could use a union.:) and yes i do try to think for myself i think with anything like i said you can take the same thing and people will perceive it differently. don't you wish working 70 hours on salary you would have had a union behind you to fight for your rights.( im just being sarcastic )

turdface wrote:

As a union member for about 40 yrs now I can tell you folks that without unions most folks would be a whole lot worse off but wouldn't know it. The rich would be richer the supv and managers would be meaner and even less fair than they are now. I've worked in non union jobs before and witnessed how the favorites, whether relatives or more attractive and better at brown nosing, were treated better than those outside the clique. They get the raises and the promotions and can talk and bull all day while everyone else had to work harder.
So if you really believe that management is fair and your working harder will pay dividends then good for you. Just wait til Jr or the easy girl with the hots gets the window office while you move to the hallway.
Sucker

lol that is what i have been trying to say, again its "who you know, not what you know"

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
It sounds to me that you and Union are threatened by the intelligence of a woman. I have to ask myself, if my name on this forum was Steve or Mike, would I be taken more seriously? This is still a common problem in our society unfortunately. Men are used to the subserviance of a female.....which with my generation is thankfully declining.

Oh. You're funny.
I don't take you seriously because you preach your "economics" yet ignore the issues of workers' rights, safety, and fairness. Furthermore, I think your economic perspective is skewed in favor of big business interests, considering that is where you get your propaganda.

However, if you feel you are being discriminated against because of your gender, please file a grievance with your union steward.

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
lol work is work i would much rather be a stay at home mom to be honest, which i think they could use a union.:) and yes i do try to think for myself i think with anything like i said you can take the same thing and people will perceive it differently. don't you wish working 70 hours on salary you would have had a union behind you to fight for your rights.( im just being sarcastic )

You have a good gig where you work. I was never lucky enough to have much free time to chat on the computer when I worked outside my home.

Unions can be good or bad as can non union shops. My first job was at a non union shop that was wisely managed. It was a locally owned and operated furniture factory, owned and operated by two brothers. They were first rate people to work for, treating everybody fairly and paying previling wage. They also kept one guy on who did not pull his weight as he couldn't, due to injuries received in battle in WWII. That guy would not have lasted at most shops because he was sick so often. However, when he wasn't sick, he was one of their best workers. At a union shop he most likely would have lost his job too, as the rules there are in place and often rigidly enforced.
I also worked for a union shop (a machinery builder) that was first rate. There the union worked with the company to an extent. They had an unofficial agreement that the compny would not go after workers for every minor infraction of the rules in return for the union not pursuing frivolous grievances.
Another union shop I worked for was part of a city, rife with politics and backstabbing. Management encouraged the backstabbing and the union did very little, if anything, to try to control it. It was technically union, but, to me not a real union as it should be. Union members should support each other, not backstab. The management also used the age old tactic of promoting to non union positions those who showed leadership as union members. From there it was often only one more step to getting rid of them as they were now "at will" employees.
Unions can be either good or bad, largely depending on the people running the local, your fellow employees. Good leadership can protect the member not only from unfair management tactics, but also their fellow workers. It works both ways.

why yes i do 4 boys. i am also one of the biggest producers and employees in my department, go figure. i am very good at what i do so it leaves me with more free time then others. plus i have formed my own union. its the hnh union where i can do what i want. (j/k) i really do get all of my work done. would rather be at home though with my kids. oh well the house wont pay for itself.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh. You're funny.
I don't take you seriously because you preach your "economics" yet ignore the issues of workers' rights, safety, and fairness. Furthermore, I think your economic perspective is skewed in favor of big business interests, considering that is where you get your propaganda.
However, if you feel you are being discriminated against because of your gender, please file a grievance with your union steward.

LOL...so you do have a sense of humor!:) I'm not employed by big business and have no bias with respect to big business. I agree with workers' rights, safety and fairness and described in our labor laws, however, I just can't bring myself to agree with the presence of unions. They represent the few and hurt the plenty. Based on an analysis of social welfare (not transfer benefits....the welfare of the people), unions cause too many adverse effects. We can agree to disagree. That works for me too! ;)

ooops.....AS described in our labor laws

I haven't read all 100+ comments and don't intend to but I'm sure it's probably running 50/50 here. I myself and a little undecided too. I come from a union family. There are good things and there are bad things. The union laid my father off when he recieved his masters because he cost too much money. On the other hand they kept our health insurance the same the entire time he was laid off. So I'm not sure where anyone else stand on this but I think the Unions pros and cons even out.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
Just start it off one at a time. Who knows, you may learn something :)

"In doing so, however, they have reduced the number of jobs available."
For that to be true the unions would have to physically reduce the number of people available to work and competitive companies available in the market. Companies can not afford to take on more employees than they can utilize. Ergo not every available laborer is going to have a union job. Some will be "forced" to take non-union jobs.

The definition of a competitive market is to produce a product at a lower price and/or a better quality at the same price. As is evident now there are more people/employees available than there are jobs to fill. At the same time wages are plummeting and still the number of available jobs is not increasing enough to absorb that surplus of available labor.

"Most, if not all, unions have monopoly power, which they can use to raise wages above competitive levels." The power that unions have to fix high prices for their labor rests on..."

Refer to the above. Plus, individual companies have the individual power to set their prices. If, which there are as evident in the auto industry between domestic and foreign manufacturers, any number of "competing" companies can produce the equivalent product at a lower price that would usually indicate more selling power. And no union can set the price of, say, a non-union company.

Just as a simplified short version of where this article is lacking complete truth.

GRGirl wrote:

I haven't read all 100+ comments and don't intend to but I'm sure it's probably running 50/50 here. I myself and a little undecided too. I come from a union family. There are good things and there are bad things. The union laid my father off when he recieved his masters because he cost too much money. On the other hand they kept our health insurance the same the entire time he was laid off. So I'm not sure where anyone else stand on this but I think the Unions pros and cons even out.

Was your father employed by the union and contracted to the employer or was he employed by the company and had a unionized job?

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.

People like you show just how out of touch with reality people are. I would say go get an education, but I see from your comments that you would not be able to do so.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
"In doing so, however, they have reduced the number of jobs available."
For that to be true the unions would have to physically reduce the number of people available to work and competitive companies available in the market. Companies can not afford to take on more employees than they can utilize. Ergo not every available laborer is going to have a union job. Some will be "forced" to take non-union jobs.
The definition of a competitive market is to produce a product at a lower price and/or a better quality at the same price. As is evident now there are more people/employees available than there are jobs to fill. At the same time wages are plummeting and still the number of available jobs is not increasing enough to absorb that surplus of available labor.
"Most, if not all, unions have monopoly power, which they can use to raise wages above competitive levels." The power that unions have to fix high prices for their labor rests on..."
Refer to the above. Plus, individual companies have the individual power to set their prices. If, which there are as evident in the auto industry between domestic and foreign manufacturers, any number of "competing" companies can produce the equivalent product at a lower price that would usually indicate more selling power. And no union can set the price of, say, a non-union company.
Just as a simplified short version of where this article is lacking complete truth.

Go learn economics so you can post things that make sense.