Forum Post: For the Union Bashers: Please Consider
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 6, 2011, 5:15 p.m. EST by Boletus
(125)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Unions are people, and from within the 99%. You may disagree with union bosses and corporate hierarchies, but the many millions who work at union jobs are the folks we need at our side. Who do you think has their necks closest to the chopping block once the 1% finish their takeover? Unions have always been the worst enemy of the 1%. That is why they were created. They bring experience, dedication, and countless resources to our casue. And we are all driving this bus, not just those who feel they are coming from some sort of blameless idealistic quasi-reality. We all share the blame for what is wrong with this world, for we allowed it to happen. BTW, I am not nor never have been a union member, nor do I even personally know someone who is. But I know a bit of US history, and without unions, we would be working 80 hours a week for $2 an hour with no overtime pay or workplace safety oversight. So please consider making room in your heart for unions and their members. The false ideological divides are the prime tool of the 1%, and preconceptions like unions are a bunch of thugs and corporate fat-cats ensure that the 1% wont even need to use violence to repress this movement. The people united will never be defeated.
Child, you have a naive view of unions based on where they came from, not what they are now. While there are certainly some unions that are still needed and still doing what they were founded for (UMWA, LGWU for example), most are simply one more way to control the worker. I have plenty of "room in my heart" for anyone willing to do a day's work for a day's pay, I have none for the unfair and asymetric labor laws nor for the union bosses who use those laws to commit violence on the rest of us and force "organization" on those who don't want to be organized and drive up prices for everybody.
Are there issues with some unions that need to be addressed? Certainly. Can we dismiss them or exclude them? Certainly not.
You assume I am a child: that is childish. Or are you calling me a member of your family, in which case I thank you?
You make a rather large assumption that we would be working 80 hours for $2 and hour without the union. Yes, they played a critical role in employment rules, but to just assume what you do without them? Childish.
By the way - unions pushed for minimum wage laws to protect their white workers from the cheap minority labor moving north. Cuddly thought, huh?
Childish? Perhaps. Simplistic and incomplete; certainly, but there is not room on this forum for a thorough analysis. If you have not done so, please read "Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck, and let's continue the discussion. What political force has driven workplace reform, if not worker's unions?
If you think we can go where we need to be without political reform, that is childish.
I have read it. If you have not read "Atlas Shrugged" to round out your thinking (agree with it or not), please do so.
Yes we need reform. Up the wazzou.
The political reforms that have most ruined workplace stability are the unions. It is the second most direct cause to jobs going overseas to cheaper labor.
(The number one cause being advances in technology that facilitate communication, education, transportation, and other -ations. :)
I read Atlas Shrugged twice, and consider it a fine fantasy novel. Unions are a negotiation tool, not a nefarious literary antagonist.
No, they are a coersion tool. If you are being required by the state or federal government to employ union workers, you cannot simply walk away from the table if you don't like their demands. You HAVE to bargain. You cannot say "your demands are 100% unfair" and go hire independant people or you end up in court - against the government.
Boeing is learning that you cannot relocate to non-union states without the NLRB attacking you.
The union holds a company hostage by creating the rules that say certain work in certain states can only be done by union members. Union members are not necessarily more skilled at the job - and they certainly are not more loyal to the company. They are more expensive. So there's that.
So we should accept working under the semi-slavery conditions imposed on Chinese factory workers in order to compete?
You really think if unions disappeared we would suddenly (or even gradually) sink into dirt hut poverty? Really? And if wages did drop that this wouldn't force the prices of good to plummet in response anyway since they were cheaper to make (and because if the cost of product doesn't fall when wages do, no one can buy them and the businesses - and rich - collapse)?
Seriously. You seem to be open to thinking and study but are stuck thinking on only half of each equation. And prone to jump to worst-possible-case senarios. Keep reading. Keep studying. Think about what the consequences for "the other side" would be and you'll get there. (by that I mean what would happen to the ability of a business to sell it's goods if no one made enough to purchase them . . . what changes would the business(es) have to make to survive in that new climate. Would they all go to crap work conditions or would smart ones offer better pay and conditions to lure the best employees . . . and so on)
OK, so market forces alone can keep the 1% at bay? I respectfully disagree. If so, why do we need this movement? And why must you assume I am ill-informed? Is it that anything outside your philosophical perspective is less than complete?
No, not ANYTHING outside my perspective is less than complete. Many philosophies outside mine are complete. One of them may even be MORE complete than mine.
But what you have presented about how the workplace will turn to slavery without unions is definately an incomplete thought-experiment.
I only have 20 minutes left before my carpool, so I would love your answer about keep the 1% at bay so I may at least partially discuss whatever that means with you.
Keep them at bay? What does that even mean?
Why does this movement exist? Perhaps we should discuss our opinions regarding that question, and proceed from there. I see a world where profit-driven machines are completely replacing human ideals of compassion and fairness as drivers of social change. That is why I am here. What is your take?
I thought it was because crony corporatists and special interest groups were in bed with the government and we were tired of bailing out companies (whether they have screwed us or are just big and failing). Are you saying it is a pr"unionize everyone" rally?
Not in the least. I am saying that, in order to succeed, we must come TOGETHER and fight for our rights.
So what do you mean "Keep them at bay"? Keep them (define "them") from doing what?
Them: the 0.01% at the top of the economic food chain. From doing what: using their tried-and-true divide and conquer strategy to destroy this movement, as they have with every similar attempt except the formation of workers unions (who, anecdotally perhaps, worked together successfuly for the first time in history).
So from your previous comment this movement is to replace Capitalism with a compassionate fairness system. Does that include taking from those who have accumulated more than you think they should to give to those who do not have as much as you think they should? Compassionately, of course . . . :)
No, the determination of "who has more than they should" is a matter for consensus, not my personal taste. Should some folks be chipping in more than they are? Absolutely.
Did I say anything about replacing capitalism in its entirety? No. Personally, I think that some form of meritocracy is our best path forward, since humans are, by nature, somewhat greedy and lazy (innate survival mechanism). But what we have now is failing, of that I am certain.
We are righteously proving that we can resist brute force, and the world can see that. Can we resist being divided and conquered? Time will tell.
You are fooling around with the facts when you say the consensus should take away from people that are better wealth creators. What you are absolutely suggesting is that a "fair" system is not a meritocracy but instead is a redistributional system that compensates the less meritous with money stolen from the more meritous.
Do you not see that?
You say in one breath that the 51% of voters (or whatever majority margin you want) should be able to punish and steal from the best to give to the worst.
Then in the very next breath you decide that a meritocracy is ideal - a meritocracy is exact compensation for exact value contributed. By its very definition a meritocracy does not redistribute wealth to those who are not adding significant value (ie the low wage, low skill worker). You are saying people should be paid based on the value the create for society . . . unless that isn't enough in which case the really good value-creators should be required by law and punishment to compensate them.
At worst you're a Marxist. At best you're a confused Socialist.
And the best I can say is that we will likely never cross over the bridge of agreeing on some points of the rally and vehemently disagreeing on others.
I Agree - cronyism between the corporations and banks and our elected officials must stop!
I Agree - no more bail-outs!
I Disagree - this is best accomplished by bigger government oversight (government is the main force behind the cronyism and making government bigger, far-reaching doesn't fix it)
I Disagree - we should then punish the rich even though they got their money by legal means
Your assumptions are quite broad, and your attempts to belittle me are transparent. Didn't anyone ever tell you that Ayn Rand wrote fantasy novels? A merit-based system need not allow for unbridled parasitization of the working poor.
You are suggesting a merit pay system. Unless the working poor aren't paid enough. That's intellectually lazy or dishonest. Choose one or explain how compensating the poor beyond a paycheck by taking out of the wealthys' paycheck as a handout is still merit-pay.
And by-the-way, Ayn Rand would be all over a true merit pay system. So belittling her philosophy while claiming to promote it (incorrectly) is intellectually dishonest or lazy. You can choose that too.
Workers without effective representation and bargaining power are trampled in a pure, un-moderated capitalist system. It ceases to be a true meritocracy as those with the most power use that power to sideline the under-represented. Hence the need for workers unions.
And I hate to be the one to tell you, but the Captains of Industry are not going to come to anyone's rescue. And the new breed at the very top of the economic feeding chain care not for the long term health of the systems from which the derive their wealth. They are committing rape, and will cast aside their victims once they are dead.
Right, they won't employ anyone. They won't compete for the best workers (by giving better conditions, wages, compensation) than their competitors without the unions driving up costs and sending jobs overseas.
Right.
I thought they were greedy bastards! I thought they would kill babies to grow their profits. I guess they are so blinded by their brilliance and greed that they don't understand that more production = more sales/business = more greedy profits. Oh wait . . . they do.
I work in a right-to-work state. Our economy is one of the best in the country. Unions be damned. We're not being trampled, we're finding good jobs for our friends and families from union-states and bussing them in. My brother arrives in 3 weeks for a manufacturing job at a non-union factory - better conditions and hours and the job has upward mobility. That last one was not an option in the union-state.
It is too bad you are a union-shill instead of realizing that the more important issue to focus on is crony corporatism. It is why the "evil insurance companies and big pharma" are major supporters of Obamacare. It is why banks were big supporters of the Dodd-Frank regulatory bill. Are the banks the evil ones? Are the insurance companies and big pharma? Or is it the politicians (supposedly in power to represent you and me) who have created regulations and legislation to monitor these businesses in the exact way they wanted to be "monitored"?
If you want proof of the effects of that cronyism here is but one biting example. Over the last decade health insurance has risen yearly at about 5%, where overall inflation has been around 3.6%. We shouted and cried and got Obamacare to fix it. But in the bill the government will not investigate or punish insurance companies so long as the raise rates by less than 10% a year. Last year? Rates went up 9%. Is the problem that the insurance companies worked within the rules to the max of their allowance? Or is it a symptom of cronyism that Democratic sponsoring insurance companies are being coddled by their bought politicians at our expense?
I know you can point to the vileness of the rate increase - it is vile. But the companies have to watch out for their best interest because they are beholden to their employees, their stockholders, and their customers. They do as much as they can get away with to balance those obligations. However, the politician is supposed to be on our side ONLY. They created a worse system in the name of tighter regulations. The regulation made the situation worse than the freer market before the regulation . . .
Call me a shill if you wish, but I have NO personal involvement with union organizations. And, by the way, I blame simplistic liberal herd followers as much as I do Rand-istic libertarian platitude spouters for the mess we are in.
The second half of that is too bad because we Libertarians are not and never have been in power. The Liberals are and have been. I think your rage is half wasted.
The mainstream right panders to and co-opts the libertarians much as the the mainstream left does for progressives. We need to progress beyond the false ideological divide and think for ourselves. Barring that, we are a circular firing squad, the prime tool of the rapists.
This thread has evinced a lively debate, for which I am grateful. That has caused me to consider rephrasing myself.
The 1% is terrified that the lofty ideals of the OWS movement and the considerable negotiating power of the unions can be merged into an extremely potent force for real change. I ask only that those who refuse to consider the inclusion of unions in this effort consider what is truly required for us to attain our common goals. To that end, the ensuing discussions provide a platform for debate.
I do not wish to see anyone compromise their ideals for the sake of expediency; that would ensure the movement dies a quiet death. But the other sure formula for failure is to allow the "divide and conquer" wedge of our preconceptions to prevent us from working together. That is exactly how we ended up in the mess we are in.
I could not imagine working at my plant without a union. Management has no scuples in regards to its employees, I that is not the case at many non-union places but if my company were non-union we would definately be competing with the chinese with low wages and terrible working conditions.
I could not imagine working at my plant without a union. Management has no scuples in regards to its employees, I that is not the case at many non-union places but if my company were non-union we would definately be competing with the chinese with low wages and terrible working conditions.
The members of Unions are good hard working people.
The leaders and administrations of most unions are corrupt, corrupted by the power the members of their unions create and extract from them.
The union members are without a doubt part of the 99%, however the battle they have is two-fold.
Not only do they have to battle the 1% that controls us, they have to battle the 1% of the union that exploits and farms them.
That is exactly why they belong with us.
Here in Ohio, public service unions (i,e, teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc..) are under attack and are ready to fight back, to stand up to the Government who wants to make them the scape goat for their failed policy. My wife is a teacher, my mother is a teacher, my father is a fire fighter, and my brother is a police officer, and we are part of the 99%...
Perhaps it is time to consider new and real Unions. The so called Union leaders now are not on your side. They are as much a part of government bribery as Wallstreet.
Unions are driven by their members. Once they understand this movement, they can perform their own house cleaning.
If that is what you believe, fine. I have seen otherwise. I do not disagree with the importance of Unions, I just believe that the "unions" are just part of our problem. If you want to have a Union, then reorganize and start again. Also, if you want this movement to go farther, and I know that I do, then you need to let some things drop for a while. I do not want to see unions take over this movement, it is too important.
Unions cannot co-opt or redirect this movement. They can participate in the General Assemblies just like anyone else.
But don't you see that "unions" are not people, either? I really do not agree that corporations are people (according to our law as of almost 100 years ago) but with that comes the other shoe. Unions only represent people that are in Unions. That became a problem decades ago, when the guy putting rivets on the car made more than the gal doing the payroll.
The problem is that the gal doing the payroll lacks representation, not the converse.
We will agree to disagree. I think that union involvement in this protest will put people, such as myself, off. If this becomes a "big union" event, I am done, and I am willing to bet that I am not the only one. I would suggest that people reorganize if they really want a union that represents them as citizens.
I agree that the big unions should be prevented from taking over and diverting the movement, but I believe the process that has been established to prevent that (General Assembly) will prevail (otherwise I wouldn't bother).
I am much more concerned that preconceptions can and will be used to divide us, because short of brute force, it is the only tool of the 0.01%.
And I wholeheartedly embrace your call for reorganization toward more complete representation. Isn't that why we are all here? If you are entirely unwilling to consider working together with the many millions of hardworking Americans that belong to unions, you are a tool of the 1%, whether you know it or not. That is how they have gotten where they are.
I know we are on the same page. I love that we can agree to disagree and still have a simular outcome in mind. This is what politics should be. We are the people that should represent "US" If you take me as a "tool", then I guess I have not represented myself very well. I just think that this needs to remain grass roots and continue representing everyone that works for a living, at least for a while.
"I just think that this needs to remain grass roots and continue representing everyone that works for a living, at least for a while."
Upon that I agree without reservation. I am not calling you a tool, at least such is not my intent. My intent is to have you evaluate your position with regard to the overall goals upon which we agree, and ensure for yourself that you are not being manipulated or misguided by preconceptions. I am doing the same, in part due to our discussion. Thank you for a cogent and eloquent debate.
This site is being spammed, as I am sure you can see.
Anyway, I know that you did not intentionally call me a "tool" I was just sparring with you on that point. Life is about growth, and I don't mean to sound like a "dirty hippie" in saying that, but there is so much more to life than money. :) Debate among equals is needed to keep our republic fresh and releivant. I am devoted to that.
No the problem is that the union has inflated the compensation above the required skill level and now holds the legal cards that force the company to continue with the union or shut down.
Here in Ohio, public service unions (i,e, teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc..) are under attack and are ready to fight back, to stand up to the Government who wants to make them the scape goat for their failed policy. My wife is a teacher, my mother is a teacher, my father is a fire fighter, and my brother is a police officer, and we are part of the 99%...
If you are admittedly that ignorant on the issue, what makes you so sure of your conclusion?
Deal with compulsion once, and see if it affects your opinion.
I fail to understand your post. Please spell it out a little better for my admittedly inferior intellect.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not inferior intellect. Just as I might be ignorant of a lot of the history you have studied, for instance.
My point was that dealing with these issues firsthand rounds out the opinion with experience. Unintended effects muddy up the picture.
He's not ignorant on the issue. I think he's saying that they have done far more good than ill in their existence.
With the benefit of extensive non-experience.
So being shot down in the streets for demanding fair treatment is non-experience? Were you on the ground yesterday? Do you know what it feels like to be on the wrong end of a nightstick?
You've been shot? I hope it wasn't by a public employee union member.
And extensive knowledge of history.
Which might be enriched by some personal contact with compulsion.
Hank: I don't even know where to begin to respond to that. Again, please spell it out for my admittedly inferior intellect and world experience. At 50 years old, having grown up dirt poor and beaten by cops for sport, and fighting my way to becoming a civil engineer after working 20+ years for minimum wage, I obviously lack your refined perspective. Thanks in advance for bringing me up to speed.
If you are implying that compulsion alone can drive this bus where it needs to go, I respectfully disagree.
No, my argument is against compulsion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Possibly. Haha. No one's saying that unions are perfect. They are there, however, to protect the rights of workers. That's what they do, for the most part.
Maybe that's what their charters say they are for. Maybe that's what they should be for. But, based on what they actually do, they are really for controlling their membership to ensure the power of union bosses, intimidating union members and non-members regarding any infringement of union bosses' power or eliminating union corruption, forcing non-union members to join the union & pay union dues, destroying company property (replacement of which has to be paid for by all of us) and shooting at people who don't agree with them. Oh, yeah, and ensuring that effective safety regulations are either not levied or, if levied, not enforced. (UMWA members, please excuse me, I know your union doesn't do this, but most do.)
Guess we just agree to disagree, then :(
I'm sure they do all of the things you mentioned, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Do you not think they do any good?
OK, we've come full circle. Thanks for your thoughts.
Their overall effect is a discussion for a different forum.
The political effect of putting them up on the website is really what is at issue. I'm composing a post on it now, will be up in a few minutes.
You're right; plus the unions are organized and have money. At some point, Occupy Wall Street is going to have to exert political pressure on local and federal governments. Having Occupy Wall Street out there gives the unions leverage. The unions are friends, not enemies. In-fighting is what has always killed the left (the "circular firing squad"). There's room for everyone, each playing a different role. We're all part of the the 99%.
Well said.
Agreed.