Why Unions must be broken
- Thread starter Dave is a killer
- Start date
- Status
Kaiped Krusader said:
If a worker finds his job is one in a union dominated field, his choices can be somewhat limited. It's not just as easy as saying 'just don't join the Union' because, in a lot of cases, non-Union workers are harrassed and hated by Union workers. If I was in the NHL, I'd probably be in the NHLPA for fear of what would happen to me if I wasn't. Hockey is violent enough. I wouldn't want a personal vendetta out on me everytime I hit the ice. People laugh when I say that, but there are many instances of violence instigated by Union members aimed towards non-Union member solely on the basis of their membership (or lackthereof). My grandfather, who has been a higher up in a few unions, most notable when he worked with AT&T, tells of how that was one of the bargaining ploys to those teetering on whether or not to become Union. It wasn't a direct comment, but it was implied that it was in your best interests to join the Union. That being said, there are non-Union companies that would love to have workers. But a good portion of the job market (in several major sectors) is realistically off limits to those who aren't pro-Union.
It is not in the best interests of the workers. It may become in your best interests to join a Union after that Union has been put in to place, but the Unions, in and of themselves, are not best for workers. Unions do fight for a bigger piece of the pie. Without them, individual workers, on their own merits, could go after a bigger piece on their own than they would get with the Union. They would also have the ability to jump from one company to the next based on pay/benefits/work environment. It's very, very difficult to do that in a Union dominated environment. Ask an Airline pilot who has been at Delta for 10 years if he would ever consider going over to American Airline. He'd never consider it. What if he absolutely hated his boss, his coworkers, his pay, and his environment? He'd still never leave. That is the Union.
Last edited:
Sabres75
Registered User
SmokeyClause said:
No dude. Unions help their membership.
It;'s quite obvious.
Look at average worker salaries (union and non-union). As unions became stronger, wages went up.
Look at the non-union auto factories.
Why do those guys make $20 an hour? Because the unions have set the market.
In my own case, I worked for a newspaper for $12 bucks an hour.
6 other newspapers in my chain were unionized. They did the exact same thing as me. In fact, they did less.
They had better benefits plus they made $17 an hour.
Seven_Nation_Army said:
I suppose you are just targeting blue-collar unions.
If you ban all unions you must ban ALL unions: Chambers of Commerce, Lawyer associations, Doctors' associations, Engineer associations, University associations, Public unions, etcetera, etcetera. Then the "business interests" that run the ****ry can get busy legislating the end to labour laws and we and our children can get back to a more Dickensian existence.
JKP
Registered User
I believe unions are outdated and no longer necessary.
- labour law suficiently protects workers (esp. in Canada)
- collective salary bargaining destroys the root of productivity: a meritocracy (reward for value provided)
- promotion based on seniority vs. merit further reduce productivity by placing the wrong people in the wrong roles
- union "rules" of who can do what further reduce productivity and options to increase productivity
- unions create a generally unhealthy "us vs. them" between managers and their staff; reducing the agility with which businesses can respond to fast-changing markets
- union leaders are now in fact the very same "fat cats" they historically profess to fight against, making massive salaries and often leading their unions into un-needed job actions simply to justify their high salaries and reason to exist
In a global economy, unions drive up the cost of goods and eventually force their employing companies to move the jobs elsewhere or allow for more competitive, non-unionized competitors to squeeze into their market.
I concur with the original poster's sentiments.
- labour law suficiently protects workers (esp. in Canada)
- collective salary bargaining destroys the root of productivity: a meritocracy (reward for value provided)
- promotion based on seniority vs. merit further reduce productivity by placing the wrong people in the wrong roles
- union "rules" of who can do what further reduce productivity and options to increase productivity
- unions create a generally unhealthy "us vs. them" between managers and their staff; reducing the agility with which businesses can respond to fast-changing markets
- union leaders are now in fact the very same "fat cats" they historically profess to fight against, making massive salaries and often leading their unions into un-needed job actions simply to justify their high salaries and reason to exist
In a global economy, unions drive up the cost of goods and eventually force their employing companies to move the jobs elsewhere or allow for more competitive, non-unionized competitors to squeeze into their market.
I concur with the original poster's sentiments.
JKP said:
And don't forget that in order to pay the higher wages that the unions get, employers have to cut jobs and automate processes as much as possible.
joechip
Registered User
SmokeyClause said:
Smokey, I think the original poster was saying that people have the right to organize (unionize). It's irrelevant that it may or may not be in their best interest. The choice should still be theirs.
I happen to agree with you that organization is rarely in the individual's interest, when the whole of their options are taken into consideration.
The american way used to be self-reliance and individual pursuit, but in reality today it is not even close to that. The government (be it state, local or Federal) gets involved in just about every transaction humans can engage in. And, IMO, most of the probelms between labor and management have only been aggravated by their intereference as opposed to alleviating them.
Ta,
Last edited:
joechip
Registered User
Newsguyone said:
Um.. A little history here, there was a pretty strong 'middle class' ever during the renaissance, and there was a lot of peace and precious few empires. A lot of people got very wealthy and the standard of living rose markedly.
The truth is that the 'middle class' as we know it today came from America's strong sense of property and individual ownership, not from 'organized labor.' Once such 'institutions' were created, along with a few other disastrous things like inflationary currency, Keynesian Economics, the Welfare/Warfare state (Otherwise known as the Military/Industrial Complex melded with The New Deal) and the like, the capital built by the middle class could be successfully bled dry over to build the current image of a 'great America.' The lie was that it was good for us and everyone else.
Sorry, for the blatantly OT digression, but something needed to be said.
Ta,
Last edited:
Bruwinz37
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 27,429
- 1
Seven_Nation_Army said:
I fly Soutwest about 50 flights a year minimum. There are reasons why they are succesful and while not having to deal with unions is one of them it is not the main reason.
The biggest reason is that they are easy to deal with. You need to change flights last second or whatever you dont get killed on fees. This is big in the long run for business travelllers like myself. It is a market they do huge business with.
Their flights are almost always on time and have great capacity %. They have a no frills atmosphere........can of coke and peanuts is what you get.
Finally, the most important reason they are so succesful (and this is the brilliant part) is that they only fly one size airline, the 737. Why is this important? Well one type of airplane, one type of engine fuel (allows to buy in more bulk), engine oil, etc....... mechanics and engineers can repair all planes which reduces delays...in other words there is no specialized people for certain planes. If you work on one, you work on all. In essence this is really what makes them so succesful. Sometimes they get a bad rap, but the service they provide is head and shoulders above the rest and that is why they get repeat business.
JKP said:
In Canada, the BC Liberals introduced legislation that reduced the minimum wage, weakened union and WCB protection and also weakened laws governing child labour. Internationally, the IMF and World Bank routinely impose restructuring programs on countries that either deregulate or eliminate labour law protection for workers.
Unions increase productivity, according to most recent studies. The voice that union members have on the job—sharing in decision-making about promotions and work and production standards—increases productivity and improves management practices. Better training, lower turnover and longer tenure also make union workers more productive.
Source: Dale Belman, "Unions, the Quality of Labor Relations, and Firm Performance," in Unions and Economic Competitiveness, eds. Lawrence Mishel and Paula B. Voos (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.: 1992), pp. 41-107.
Corporations are the economic equivalent of fascism while unions are democratic. You want to eliminate unions then you must also eliminate the freedom to assemble and freedom of association.
And, again, by unions you probably only mean blue-collar unions while ignoring Chambers of Commerce, Lawyer associations, Doctors' associations, Engineer associations, University associations, Public unions, etcetera. Let's be fair and eliminate their right to associate freely, too.
Last edited:
- Status
