Are unions still valuable? Were they ever?

[Sava]

If unions were abolished tomorrow, this country would be on a slippery slope back to those good ol' robber baron days. If I'm wrong though, we should legalize murder. I mean, that law is well established enough, isn't it?

[HolyWarrior]

Re: Are unions still valuable? Were they ever?

Originally posted by Kontiki
The more I look at labor unions, at least in North America, the more I think they are passed their prime. I think they played an invaluable role back in the days of robber barons in establishing worker's rights, but today I think these rights are well enough established by labor laws that they are unlikely to be repealed. This isn't to say that I don't think unions do some good, but rather that on balance, they are detremental. I think that most have become massive bureaucracies that are more interested in maintaining their own power position rather than actually doing what is best for their members.

Discuss.

Spot on, Kontiki. Most U.S. labor unions are little more than cheerleading clubs for the Demonrats. This despite the rank and file being almost evenly divided.

[Shi Huangdi]

OTOH, if unions artifically raise wages and benefits too high, it might lead to unemployment by raising the cost of labor too high, there needs to be a balance.

[Sava]

hmmm... too high? nahhhh.... I won't bite on this one... too easy

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unions are still valuable... however, I believe in having 'right-to-work' states. If you don't want to join a union, you shouldn't have to. Of course those on the left that speak of democracy wish to force people into joining unions, many of them which are corrupt and take union dues to pad their own pockets. A damned shame.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Sava
hmmm... too high? nahhhh.... I won't bite on this one... too easy

Basic economics. The higher the cost of any item gets, the less of it will be demanded.

[Sava]

unions should be voluntary ... damn Imran... when was the last time we agreed on anything?

[orange]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Unions are about equal bargaining power.

For twelve friggin' years, I was a "temporary" employee, and--because we were only temporary--we were the lowest paid in California. Management tried to fire one woman because she went on maternity leave. When she pointed out that was illegal, they took her back and then fired her for disloyalty when they discovered she was looking for another job.

I had one foot out the door myself when I realized that, if I left without changing the system, it would never get any better. Instead of quitting, I contacted the organizing section of a union.

After nearly a year of organizing, our new local was certified. After another a year of bargaining (read "stalling"), we got a contract recognizing us as permanent and got the biggest percentage raise ever given to non-managment personnel. (I don't think we'll ever be able to match the 75% raise management gave to itself.)

As a result, last summer I went on my first vacation in 15 years, and I'm currently thinking about buying a house.

I was under the impression that you were very wealthy.

[orange]

certainly I agree that unions should be voluntary, and that no one should physically or otherwise prevent someone from going to work. And I also agree with what Black Dragon said.

Too much unionism will make mechanized labour more and more attractive. But we're on that path anyway, so it's just stalling the inevitable. Unions though are a good thing in my opinion.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Sava
If I'm wrong though, we should legalize murder. I mean, that law is well established enough, isn't it?

Here's one of the most patently rediculous statements ever made. First of all, it directly contradicts itself - murder should be made legal because laws preventing it are well established? What kind of Fezzian logic is that? Second, the point is that there are labor laws in place which, thanks to unions in the past, protect workers rights. Nowhere did I say that existing labor laws should be abolished - quite the contrary. It seems that many argue that unions still form a necessary part of that process, and I can't totally disagree.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Unions are still valuable... however, I believe in having 'right-to-work' states. If you don't want to join a union, you shouldn't have to.

One of the problems with right-to-work states is, you don't have to join the union, but you still get all of the benefits of the union if there's one at your worksite. This encourages people not to pay dues but still use the greivance system, get benefits, etc. If you don't want to be part of the union, that's fine, but then you should be all the way out.

And kudos to Zkribbler!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by orange
I was under the impression that you were very wealthy.

Well sure, now. God bless the union.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
OTOH, if unions artifically raise wages and benefits too high, it might lead to unemployment by raising the cost of labor too high, there needs to be a balance.

How can there be a balance without equal bargaining power? Higher salary means more purchasing power, leading to increased demand, more production, & more profits.

Compare the economic power of the U.S., Canada & Western Europe (which have unions) to the Third World (which have no effective unions).

[SpencerH]

I dont think theres any doubt that unions were (and occasionally still are) a necessity to force better working conditions for many people. Unfortunately, the labour movement was suborned early on by the communists who have too often used it for their own ends. In some countries in which I've lived such as Sweden the unions still provide a useful service for their members, and almost act as a level of government because of their massive (moderate) strength. In Canada, however, the unions are analogous to a huge bloated parasite under the direction of psychotic leftists (just look at the postal service for one example).

Two countries that have had good economic growth since the early eighties are the USA and Britain, both of which confronted the radical unions and subdued their malicious activities.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
The flip side of this is that they slow technical change. Consider the railroad unions. For decades they required six man crews, when only two people were needed. They also imposed six years of severance pay if their members were laid off. These sorts of conditions nearly bankrupted the railroad industry, and lead to the growth of much less environmentally friendly truck transportation.

I was a freight train conductor for CP rail for 5 years, I
was also in manufacturing ISIT for 10 years.

The Trucking industry growth is a result of Just in Time manufacturing doctine. (ie NO stocks).

Government law changes (trucks so long they can't turn a corner, truckers driving 60+ hours a week, no safety standards until wheels flying off trucks were killing people). Are a direct result of industrial lobbying.

The UTU (rail union) is not responsible for the demise
of railroads. They do look after their members well.
And the standards for railroaders are very high, which
is a comfort considering what freight they are carrying though your towns.

Oh, the two man crew is just a disaster waiting to happen. The reason I left the railroad was their was
no way I was going to be switchin' out a train in a
yard at 3:00 am in the morning by myself. I want
to keep ALL my limbs as well as my life.

[SpencerH]

After some of the evidence for railroad engineers falling asleep (microsleep) while operating locomotives and missing lights I think there should be more engineers not less.