Often, I'll pick up my debate topic and head to a debate forum since debate threads don't have much longevity here, but I don't like other forums as much as I like Plime because Plime is the only forum I frequent with voting. I think the voting may be one of the reasons debatable topics here don't last too long, since we can just click to agree instead of posting a comment about agreeing which would require further input... ahem, to the point of my post.


I think worker's unions, under the right circumstances, are a great thing. I'm glad they started, as ways of ensuring employers treated workers fairly and wages were fair, as well as ensuring the workplace practiced proper safety procedures and basically didn't treat workers as low-paid slaves.

However, in North America (okay, I really mean Canada, since I don't know much about how things work in that noisy nation to my south), these adverse working conditions really don't exist anymore. There are laws in place to ensure worker safety, and minimum wage is government mandated, not established between a union and the employers.

I feel that worker's unions have become more about promoting pecking orders and unjustified wages instead of merely keeping workers safe.

In my opinion, worker's unions here in 2009 are generally a negative thing (of course, there are exceptions to everything), even though less than a century ago they were good and beneficial things.

Do you agree, or disagree?

At one time, they were a great thing, like you said.

Thanks to unions, you only work a 40 hour week and if you work longer you are compensated for it.
Thanks to unions you are entitled to, even required to take, breaks and lunch. You can't be denied use of a restroom, break time or not.

You might think safety was something different, that was the health and safety act. But it was the unions that pushed for that and helped establish OSHA in 1972.

It was unions that got medical care required for their members.

But, that said, I think the time of the union is past. They are not strong like they used to be and in fact in a lot of ways now, they are a hindrance in the workplace. There are less and less of them now, they are definitely dying out.

I wish I had seen this a couple of days ago. My little "big" sister was visiting, but she is leaving in the early morning.

The reason this is relevant is twofold:

1. We grew up pretty much, well, not anti-union as much as your idea: Unions have outlived their usefulness.
2. My next-oldest sister is a negotiator for the Teamsters.

She is an extreme conservative in a world full of liberals. That, and she is 5 foot 2 AND A HALF inches tall. (The and a half is important.) Most of these guys, she would have to reach up to smack 'em. But there is no doubt, at the table or testifying to the legislature, that she knows her stuff and won't take any bulls**t.

As to the topic, I am on your side here, but it would have been fun to let her reply. Her diatribe would make my verbose rants look downright brief.

I feel that worker's unions have become more about promoting pecking orders and unjustified wages instead of merely keeping workers safe.

FTW!

By the way, I totally agree with everything you said about them, that just stuck out to me.

I know for a fact that union dues pay for the president of the union to go to conventions, like Vegas. (I think they even paid for my ex husbands mistress, unbeknownst to them....she did stay in his room..I was at home with the kids).

But even my ex and my own father who was a big union man, told me the same thing.

They hated their positions, for they were expected to be puppets and tell the people what the union bigwigs wanted them to hear, not what really went on, to keep the peace. Both of them are pretty outspoken and they just said it like it was. They were elected to represent the people, not lie to them. And they stood fast on their beliefs.

Furthermore, my ex at one time quit doing the union stuff as he was recieving threats against our family for saying what he WANTED to say, not listening to how it should be edited and given to the people.

He quit for a few yrs. He picked it back up later when the people asked him to run again.

Let's talk about dues, shall we?

Our county runs union dues on percentages of income. Which is fine if you work 9-5 M-F with holidays and weekends off, but at 911 we do not. We have to stay over if someone calls off and we do work holidays and get that pay that others merely get the day off with straight pay.

So while Miss Mary in the auditors office pays the same every week as her hours never change, if I have had to work a holiday and stay over for a call off, I get MORE of my money taken out to go to the union.

I pay an average of 65 bucks a pay with no OT. That's alot of money going to the union I wish I had. Multiply THAT by all the workers under said union and I have to wonder what they DO with all that money?

I agree that unions have become something far worse than they were originally intended for, and personally, I've never had a use for them.

On the other hand, ten years ago everyone thought Wall Street didn't need all those pesky regulations anymore, either, and look where we are today.

I started out my adult working life in a job position which was represented by a union. Texas is a right to work state, so union membership is strictly voluntary. I refused to join, but found myself in a conflict with the company. The union came in and helped me out, even though I wasn't a member. So I joined. I became active and was a trustee for several years and was elected by my local 3 times to sit on our negotiating team when contract negotiation time came around. I even served as the Shop Steward for a while when the elected Shop Steward had to take a 6-month leave of absence. Later, I took a promotion and the last 18 years have moved up the ladder of management, so I have literally been on both sides of the table. Generally, I agree with the consensus so far. Unions are largely not needed today. In fact, unions were the main cause of the company where I started out eventually failing and shutting down. The union contracts (there were 3 different locals in that company) were so economically draining, the company couldn't make a profit anymore and the union, even when presented with the facts of the health of the company, would not even consider the possiblity of renegotiating a more favorable contract that would enable the company to survive. So basically, they killed the golden goose and everyone was out of a job instead of just a few. Unions need to reform and be partners with companys or the same thing is going to happen, especially with the big 3 auto makers.

I think it is on and off.
Depending on lots of factors they can be good or anachronistic. Right now they may seem to be anachronistic, but since 1989 they are less and less like that and I expect their importance is going to grow even further in the next few decades.
Their importance will not be as high as it used to be at the first part of XX century, because by now corporates know very well how to play them.
(Corrupt the leaders, or threaten/kill the leaders, or set up alternative unions with your mob in charge and put the original union out of business.)

I have to say that (from a British point of view) I go the other way. Perhaps it stems from our history, and things like the Tolpuddle Martyrs but the presence of unions is something that we need.

If you look around at the way employers try to squeeze ever more out of us, the workers, how they try to cut corners with our working environments, how they try to overturn or ignore existing welfare regulations then to get rid of the one force fighting for us is insane.

This is not to say that unions should be allowed to carry out their activities unchallenged and if they have become bloated on their own excess then measures need to be taken to reign that in.

But getting rid of them altogether is both a sledgehammer to a peanut and cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Unions might sometimes be obstacles to the economy, and they might be corrupt, but if they ever completely go away, wouldn't the regulations that protect workers that the unions got passed get repealed, making them needed all over again?

Agreed, they have become somewhat of a necessary evil. My main beef with the unions is that they base pay raises on seniority, not skill. The guy working next to you who has been in the union for 30 years may be a complete dips**t with prehistoric job training and can be making triple your pay, just because of his seniority. You may be the better worker, and have the latest technical training and still be making the lower wage. Kinda like teachers, but that's a whole other forum.

No, they have been made into federal laws now, plus unions don't oversee them now, never did.

Exactly. The unions do not enforce the laws, and they don't hold members accountable for job performance. It's outrageous to me that any union would demand terms that kill the business, and it happens more and more. Just look at how much the auto industry and the airlines are paying out in retirement payments to union members and tell me the unions are good for anyone.

I don't believe that worker's unions should be eradicated, but I would like to see their power scaled back a bit.

I might support unions that rally their employer and the government for safe workplaces and fair wages.
I loathe the fact that most unions here demand such high wages that for their employers to make a profit, the product must be priced substantially higher. I also loathe the fact that unions can ensure really really lousy workers still have work.

Oh, this is one sore subject with me....

As a summer student, I had to pay union dues when I worked for the government. But since my term of employment was fixed at 4 months, I wasn't eligible for any union benefits. I didn't want to sign over the $25 or whatever it was from every paycheck when it would have no benefit to me (and that amount from all my paychecks would be worth a textbook or two to a student!)

When I was signing my contract and I mentioned my disagreement with paying union dues, the HR lady with me looked down her nose at me and said "This isn't Alberta. Sign to allow your union dues taken off your paycheck."

I could have fought it, but I just wanted to work and make money and I didn't feel like making a huge stink over it then. Argh!

There's always a flip side to a coin. Sorry but I waffle on unions on a at least a monthly basis. I've never been a union worker, though I've envied them at times.

There are still situations where unions protect their employees physically, financially and with integrity. It's hard for me to say they're utterly useless. I have friends who are part of the chemical workers' union...you have to have unions in those shops, trust me on that. I know people who were injured on the job and thanks to the union they were aided better than if they'd been alone.

I've also seen unions do stupid things that not only risk the jobs of the members and their livelihood but also endanger the lives of people on whose backs they depend, the consumer (think air traffic controllers, for one).

Wouldn't it be great if we could trust that the "bosses" wouldn't take advantage of their employees. Well not all bosses do the problem is when those abuses happen, they happen big. And without some sort of regulation things go spiraling out of control (see Wall Street circa 1980s to present).

Well of course we have regulation. OSHA and all that except it's underfunded and understaffed so it can make rules and it can try to enforce them but it falls short. We can say "fund it better" but no one wants to pay more taxes for more funding so that's a waste of breath. So the members fund the union. Then they elect someone they hope will keep their best interests in mind and won't go all corrupt on them (sound like a certain government yet?) to run the union.

So, like government and it's voters, the problem with the union is the members. There's strength in numbers but only if the union members are wise enough to a) realize their power and b) do something about it.

Everyone should have a safe working environment with proper compensation. Beyond that you're owed nothing. You're not owed job security, a pension, or x number of raises for no good reason. If you want those things you have to earn them and not everyone can or should.

Do you feel that you're paid enough on your job? Do you wish it was 100% secure. Do you want health benefits for life? Do you feel you deserve seniority?

We have to, as a world, decide the price we're willing to pay for everything we want and we have to decide if what we want is worth it in the great big scheme of things.

If I want to have 18 kids and the price is that more schools have to be built, more cars have to be made, more burial plots have to be set aside I have to ask myself is it worth it? Because I'm not the only one who wants 18 kids. I'm not the only one who can't afford the price of what I'm asking.



Meh, I'm rambling. Sorry for the brain dump.

MY stepfather was a Union electrician journeyman and foreman, my mother was a non union electrician (a mechanic, is what she was called) and is now a county electrical inspector. My stepfather was the lead electrical foreman of major league ballpark, when the job finished he went back to the hall and was 300 guys down on the list. He had been a very loyal union guy all his life, and even performed dangerous mole work with non-union contractors during the 70's. He was union to his teeth. When he was looking at a slowing building cycle and economy and a 4-5 month layoff, he decided to open a small business. Now he is hardcore Libertarian Conservative, he too thinks Unions have outlived their usefulness, and that their greed and bureaucracy have contributed to the ill health of American industry and the outsourcing of jobs. I take it as a sign of the strength of his conviction that he could make such a drastic change in the course of 2 decades, but I don't necessarily believe he is right. I think Unions have become WAY too protectionist, and short sighted. They have allowed Republicans and big business to paint them as lazy, leftist, greedy, uneducated, and supporters of the vilified "affirmative action". 3 Republican administrations and a Clinton administration that did little to reform labor union practices have backed Unions into a corner and they have forgotten what they stand for. I think that this administration and financial climate is a golden opportunity for Unions to get back to what they were really about, protecting workers, fighting for fair wages, and acting as a check on rampant "monster" capitalism, and the "investor first" mindset that has been so pervasive in the last 20 years. I think it would be helpful and instrumental to the Union's domestic mission to take these values to the world, and support human rights, and fair labor practices in the developing world.

Exactly. It is only law. It can be easily changed or just not enforced if there is no organized effort to watch the sharks.

But they are political forces that ensure that the laws aren't repealed. I am not talking about them having any kind of governmental or law-enforcement role, I am saying that they have a political role.

No, laws aren't changed that easily.

At one time, yes. They are very weak now.

I don't believe that unions are much of anything any more. They are getting scarcer all the time.

I am thankful for what they did, but not for what they do.

What do you mean? Why would they have any difficulty changing the laws? There are things like lobbyists and politicians out there you know, and on some rare occasions, they do actually get something done. I think that it would only take one or two years to change some of these laws, especially as employers would probably support less regulations.

But they are still around. If some political forces tried to repeal laws affecting a particular industry, the unions in that industry could put pressure on groups with interests in that industry or on politician from the area where the industry is located at, resulting in an opposing force that can prevent the law from being changed, even if the general population is not interested in either side of that particular issue.

But if there were no unions, then if they were needed, it would be almost impossible to put together any kind of resistance to the political forces bent on repealing the law.

Unions are just more interest groups. There are many interest groups out there that nobody cares about and nobody has any problems with; why make unions the big exception? If we outlawed interest groups, only outlaws would have them!

and shes going somewhere without the net or wont reply unless you make her?

I think you are very optimistic.