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

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


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.

And since when is wealth creation the sole issue? Unions redistribute wealth, which helps maintain social cohesion. Better that the masses strike every so often, rather than decviding to every so often kill those on top and take their spots.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


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.

Thye problem with American education is that it is run locally by smuchks and idiots, not by trained educations specialists making education policy nationwide, or even state wide.
There are teacher's unions in Europe and Japan, and their education systems do not suffer for it.

[Zkribbler]

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

Maybe for the median American family, but I was speaking of the working class family, these are the Americans who have been left behind.

My stats show that between 1979 and 1998, salaries of the American working class dropped an average of 8.6%. There was also a 10% greater chance they'd be without health insurance.

These are the people unions should have been and should be protecting. My point is that we union people have been falling down in this area.

[chequita guevara]

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

That's misleading. If you move from a one earner family to a two earner family, even if both sets of wages decrease by 10% (historical), overall family income increases.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Sava, unions served a purpose once, and probably will do at some point again in the less developed world.

Now they only act to exclude outsiders from competing for the jobs of the current employees.

Read up insider-outsider theory and you'll understand.

Seeing as more employees = more potential members = more money/power for the unions...

...one tends to suspect this assertion is really rather funny.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The problem with Unions is the same problem wihth any human organization, ultimately the same founding tennets and goals of the group get compromised and corrupted in order to further the survival and or increase the power of the organization. Be damnded with the cause, long live the organization!!!

[chequita guevara]

The problem with the unions is they threw out the Reds in order to please the government and the bosses, and they've been milqtoast ever since. That, and the infiltration by the mob.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The reds got corrupted in about the same time frame/line as the unions. Absolute power....

[chequita guevara]

We were out in the late 40s/early 50s. There wasn't time for us to be corrupted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dunno che, I'm sure I can buy you off with a pitcher of beer

[Az]

The problem with Unions is the same problem wihth any human organization, ultimately the same founding tennets and goals of the group get compromised and corrupted in order to further the survival and or increase the power of the organization. Be damnded with the cause, long live the organization!!!

more direct involvement of membership

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

And since when is wealth creation the sole issue? Unions redistribute wealth, which helps maintain social cohesion. Better that the masses strike every so often, rather than decviding to every so often kill those on top and take their spots.

I'll ignore your first question as its premise is false. Yes unions redistribute wealth, but their disconnect from being responsible for making an actual profit in the long run rather than simply seeing that they and their members get paid as much as possible make them poor business partners. Unions regularly resist innovation as it tends to replace labor with capital. Innovation is where the vast majority of the growth of modern economies resides, and he who is only allowed by his "partner" to reap half the rewards available from innovation will not long be able to compete with those who are able to take full advantage. The only place where unions don't seem to put themselves out of work in the long run is in government, but I don't doubt that eventually they will price themselves out of that market their too.

As for your give 'em a union and they won't hang you comment, it's laughable. What percentage of capitalists were murdered by their employees in the "bad old days" before unionization? Unions didn't change the labor laws, progressive politicians did, and for everybody.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

Thye problem with American education is that it is run locally by smuchks and idiots, not by trained educations specialists making education policy nationwide, or even state wide.
There are teacher's unions in Europe and Japan, and their education systems do not suffer for it.

That's a great point. State and local governments are no match for a national lobbying force like the teachers unions (iirc nearly 25% of the presidential nominating committee for Kerry were from the teacher's unions). Even the feds are loathe to take on the teachers unions, but they can and have before. But seeing as they (feds) only contribute 10-15% of the funds and excercise almost no control over the system as a whole they don't worry the teachers that much.