Should labor unions be disbanded?

The question on this thread "Should Unions be Disbanded" is moot, considering our first amendment guarantees us the right to assemble and free association.

Any workplace that has a union also has a history of mistreating workers, otherwise they would never have unionized. Workers have the right to protect themselves. This is America, not Cambodia.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
No it would not. Unions built the middle class. The disappearance of union jobs correlate to the diminishing middle class. What is happening, and would happen sooner if unionization were illegal, is the widening of the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor, with little in between.

This is exactly what the union would want you to believe in order to keep thier membership, profit and political weight at its optimum. Please read some unbiased economic studies and literature which PROVES theoretically, empirically and mathematically otherwise.

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
i have to disagree with you on this...in regard to my position, they had temps in here paying them $5 less per hour then me and they had more experience.yes they are temps but at the same time the job is the job. my company tends to pay on the high side for the area. in regard to other statments i could be wrong but believing things you get out of a book or a class are not necessarily accurate either. out there living it is the only real way to have a valid opinion on something. if someone has never experienced working for a union how can you have knowledge on whether it is good or bad. some posts that people have worked for a union can point out its good points and bad points. some like it some dont. isnt it part of our freedom to have a union if we so choose. and its not even uaw that has unions what about the teachers union. these are educated people.

The temps were likely being paid less than you when you consider that they do not recieve benefits. I don't think that face-to-face experience with a union is necessary when you can see on paper the effects of unionization. I can understand teacher unions to a degree since the position is highly politicized. Tax payers essentially determine the wages of teachers and tax payers have the incentive to pay as little as possible to the teachers while at the same time demanding more.

One of the problems with unions is the difficulty in firing an unproductive employee. However, it is difficult to reward an excellent employee as well. My husband works in a non union shop and found another job in the same field for more money. When his supervisor was given my husbands 2 week notice, he immediately went to his boss, and my husband was offered a matching deal- because they did not want to lose him. If he had been in a union shop, this would not have happened.

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
i just really feel like you are generalizing and have a quick answer for this. what about the person that puts up with it to feed their family. yes they have a choice but whats the choice feed their family or starve. there are just to many scenarios to put it all in one big pot. companies do in fact take ADVANTAGE of their empolyees.

I don't disagree that companies take advantage of thier employees, however, at the same time, unions take advantage of thier power and pass the costs of thier activites off on the rest of us.

Arctic49519 wrote:

The question on this thread "Should Unions be Disbanded" is moot, considering our first amendment guarantees us the right to assemble and free association.
Any workplace that has a union also has a history of mistreating workers, otherwise they would never have unionized. Workers have the right to protect themselves. This is America, not Cambodia.

I am only bitter....

Because the UAW didn't protect my job and not long after the union steward joined the management.

That stinks!

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
This is exactly what the union would want you to believe in order to keep thier membership, profit and political weight at its optimum. Please read some unbiased economic studies and literature which PROVES theoretically, empirically and mathematically otherwise.

I'm afraid I can't, because no such literature exists.

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
This is exactly what the union would want you to believe in order to keep thier membership, profit and political weight at its optimum. Please read some unbiased economic studies and literature which PROVES theoretically, empirically and mathematically otherwise.

Would you please post where those can be found. I'm interested in learning about that.

Arctic49519 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm afraid I can't, because no such literature exists.

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...

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't disagree that companies take advantage of thier employees, however, at the same time, unions take advantage of thier power and pass the costs of thier activites off on the rest of us.

I have a hard time believing everyhthing that is written on paper. there is alot to be said about experience with something. please explain how they pass their costs on to us. i know that my husband has to pay union dues. so I am not understanding what you mean here.

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
See, there you go making some sense again.
But your view is much closer to socialism than my conservatism is to fascism. I have no leanings toward bigger, stronger gov't.
Less is definitely more in this case. Laws, regulations, taxes, you name it.

Seenitbefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya I have. Never set out to demean those who make MISTAKES though. Have you?
Only those who won't admit it.

Well so far Mark is way wrong..even in simple math and the ability to "ggogle. Guess my 6th grade education is bettr tha his 3rd. Put brain in gear before engaging mouth Mark. Just the usual anti worker people being jealous of good wages and bennies.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you please post where those can be found. I'm interested in learning about that.

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.

hnhmom wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a hard time believing everyhthing that is written on paper. there is alot to be said about experience with something. please explain how they pass their costs on to us. i know that my husband has to pay union dues. so I am not understanding what you mean here.

Perhaps the thinking is the company passes all their costs onto the consumer,(the) us. So the wages and benefits the "union" laborers are paid are costs therefore all passed onto "us".

Not ANY different than EVERY company much less a non-union company.

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.

4boys-1princess wrote:

One of the problems with unions is the difficulty in firing an unproductive employee. However, it is difficult to reward an excellent employee as well. My husband works in a non union shop and found another job in the same field for more money. When his supervisor was given my husbands 2 week notice, he immediately went to his boss, and my husband was offered a matching deal- because they did not want to lose him. If he had been in a union shop, this would not have happened.

So true....

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
The temps were likely being paid less than you when you consider that they do not recieve benefits. I don't think that face-to-face experience with a union is necessary when you can see on paper the effects of unionization. I can understand teacher unions to a degree since the position is highly politicized. Tax payers essentially determine the wages of teachers and tax payers have the incentive to pay as little as possible to the teachers while at the same time demanding more.

Where do you pick this BS up from??? Being paid less than you because of no benefits ???? Makes no sense at all....what you smoking..??

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.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps the thinking is the company passes all their costs onto the consumer,(the) us. So the wages and benefits the "union" laborers are paid are costs therefore all passed onto "us".
Not ANY different than EVERY company much less a non-union company.

HELLO...earth calling anti union...come in for landing..over.

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
You kill me.

We don't have that kind of luck...

[JUST KIDDING]

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.

So, guess a union is good after all...unless you are missing many brain cells