It always seems to be hard to get behind unions in strikes

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Sava


I think the reason we have so many bad teachers in America is because we don't attract quality people to the profession because the pay and benefits suck so much compared to other professions.

To blame unions for the problem is... well, dumb...

People with liberal arts degrees can get high school teacher jobs that pay more starting off than a lot of other jobs they end up going into [/Asher]

[Zkribbler]

What's the difference between a First-World country and a Third-World country? In a word: Unions. Unions redistribute the wealth of a nation to create a middle class, and the affluence of the middle class creates consumerism, creates jobs, creates wealth.

The problems we see now with the unions began in the late 60 with corruption scandals and union abuses such as featherbedding and protectionism. The result was that unions have been becoming increasingly more ineffective.

Since 1972, the wages of most working people have either remained stable or drifted downwards (except for an uptick during the last of the Clinton years). Meanwhile, what has happened to corporate profits and the net worth of Americas richest? Those have skyrocketted.

At the same time, corporations have polished their PR skills. When workers attempt to keep their health benefits and pensions, they are labeled "greedy." (See the recent NY transit strike.)

I see no greed. The union efforts I have witnessed are to obtain or protect: a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, health care, pensions, and public education.

I haven't seen any unions trying to keep "outsiders" out. We want more employees -- if for nothing more than the self-interest of generating more union members. Why would we be exclusionary??

I constantly hear about unions protecting incompetent teachers. What I see is unions trying to protect competent teachers from being terminated at the whim of some bureaucrat. For example, I watched the Legislative hearings on Prop 74 -- Schwartennegger's attempt to impose a 5-year probationary period on Calif. teachers. Jackie Goldberg, who was chairing the hearing, told of her days as a school teacher when her principal attempted to fire her (a) for wearing sandals, and (b) for posting student essays on her bulletin board on controversal subjects.

[Apocalypse]

I see no greed. The union efforts I have witnessed are to obtain or protect: a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, health care, pensions, and public education.

People see wanting to retire at 55 with really good benefits to be pretty greedy.

[notyoueither]

Re: It always seems to be hard to get behind unions in strikes

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Every union dispute seems to be either
1) Company is dying (airlines/GM)
2) Workers have it pretty good, especially compared to others in the area (New York transpo)

Maybe it's because those are the only ones that get ratings on TV news. I mean, with #1 you can blame the original problem on management pretty easily and usually the people who originally created the problems are gone. There just don't seem to be any clear workers are in the right and should get what they want situations anymore.

It happens from time to time that a union is more right than wrong.

Just this year there was a labour dispute where I was 95% on the side of the union. Management was trying to impose a contract that the union refused to negotiate, because it was too far from their old contract. Instead of talking and making compromises, the company said 'OK, today the new contract is in effect.' The union walked, and they were right.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
People see wanting to retire at 55 with really good benefits to be pretty greedy.

On the other hand, it wasn't the workers' pensions that were at issue...it was those of workers who had yet to be hired.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Since 1972, the wages of most working people have either remained stable or drifted downwards (except for an uptick during the last of the Clinton years).

Census data on the median family income (inflation adjusted) appear to refute this claim.

Disclaimer: I just bought a jacket made in Canada by Teamsters

[Apocalypse]

Re: Re: It always seems to be hard to get behind unions in strikes

Originally posted by notyoueither


It happens from time to time that a union is more right than wrong.

Just this year there was a labour dispute where I was 95% on the side of the union. Management was trying to impose a contract that the union refused to negotiate, because it was too far from their old contract. Instead of talking and making compromises, the company said 'OK, today the new contract is in effect.' The union walked, and they were right.

I heard nothing of this.

[notyoueither]

It was a Canadian company. A fairly large one. Telus.

[Apocalypse]

Well that explains why it wasn't in the news here.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It's just that in every strike I do hear about it is just hard to get behind the unions at all.

[notyoueither]

I agree. Illegal strikes to preserve retirement at 55 is hard to support.

[Patroklos]

Unfortunetly most of the Unions that can afford to stage large crippling strikes are the ones who are corrupt to the bone. One often wonders how they can take care of their workers when all their money goes into the union coffers and the bosses pockets. Unions used to be good for more things than simpl striking.

And it is kind of hard to blame NYC for wanting to modify pensions when they start paying out at 55. That is ridiculous.

[Az]

People see wanting to retire at 55 with really good benefits to be pretty greedy

Since it wasn't about the current employees at all, calling them greedy and selfish is stupid, although I am not sure that their demand to continue retiring at 55 with rising life expectancy is legitimate.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't understand why people complain about unions. Do people understand what things were like before unions? Or what things would be like without them?

Go read up on what labor conditions were like before union movements okay guys.

The people who stand the most to gain from things if there were no unions, or if unions' powers were not as strong would be major corporations and large employers. And things would be worse for everyone... not just unions, because then companies would be allowed to exploit ALL workers.

So while sometimes unions might do things that may seem ridiculous, like making outrageous demands during negotiations or whatnot, or while in some cases, some unions may be corrupt... things would be a lot worse most people if unions did not exist.

Unless you guys think 80 hour work weeks, child labor, and no benefits are a good thing...

Oh I know what things would be like for me without unions, exactly the same except that I might receive better service in the few places I now shop that are unionized.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava

Unions exist to serve the interests of their members.

And corporations exist to serve the interests of their shareholders. The difference is that the union doesn't actually produce any wealth, it is simply a government enforced monopoly on providing labor in certain industries.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava

I think the reason we have so many bad teachers in America is because we don't attract quality people to the profession because the pay and benefits suck so much compared to other professions.

To blame unions for the problem is... well, dumb...

The teachers unions have driven educational policy in this country for decades, and even in their decline have veto power over most important decisions made about education above the local level. They are quite a bit like the insurance industry, regulated by their well-bought friends and sticking it to the man, woman and child.