Forum Post: Labor Unions Are Obsolete
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 2:41 a.m. EST by slizzo
(-96)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. They did a fine and necessary job, but now their pathetic attempt to remain relevant has reduced them to little more than a racket. This is why they moved their efforts to the public sector, driving up the cost of delivering necessary govt services to unsustainable levels. This is the enormous hidden cost of govt, the cost of labor plus all the associated costs that come with union labor. Then, all that extra money gets funneled to the DNC for more vote-buying scheme as sucker after sucker falls for the bullshit story that they aren't just as bought and paid for corporatists as the GOP.
How gullible can people be?
FDR, the patron saint of the progressives, saw the folly in this. How is it any different now?
Of course, many will try to claim we are all on the brink of the 7-day work week and child labor if there were no public sector labor unions. If you believe that, send me a private message. I have a bridge to sell you.
Instead of asking why union people get paid so much (they really don't), one should rather be asking why non-union people get paid so little.
When one is fighting for their fair share and rights, they are also fighting for everybody else's fair share and rights. So why do some folks get all up set with unions? I don't get it.
When the built the anti-union propaganda mills in the 30s, they just kept them running. They even still use stuff from the railroads v unions of 1890s.
The crap never changes.
It's NOT the workers anyone has an issue with...it's the BA's and other higher ups who could give a fuck about the true labor element
I know. It's collective bargaining they hate.
No, it's well beyond that. We've gone round on this before. Have a great thanksgiving...unless you are so progressive that you can't even enjoy that! Lol
My daughter will be home from university.
We already had turkey, so we'll figure out something else.
Happy Thanksgiving.......:)
Good...do enjoy while your girl is home. :)
the difference in pay is obvious. union employee pay is higher because of the money that they do not get, the union dues that get funneled to the democratic party. everyone knows that.
"So why do some folks get all up set with unions?"
private sector unions, I have no issue with because it is none of my business.
public sector unions are my business. that is my, and every other tax payer's, money.
if you can't understand the difference, you can't have an adult-level conversation about this.
The only difference with public versus private sector unions is that in the public sector you indirectly are the person's employer, and you feel like ripping your employee off, 'cause your too cheap and greedy to pay your piddlely share of taxes. Think this; there is probably some corrupt politician who is more greedy than you between you and that government union employee, who is out taking your hard earned tax dollar, and who is trying not to give it to the union employee, so that he can give that money to himself and his corrupt buddy instead. If the government union guy can get his fair share from his employer, the corrupt politician will do less of his corrupt thing, and you will have a better chance of getting your fair share from your employer. (Uh by the way I'm over 21)
"The only difference with public versus private sector unions is that in the public sector you indirectly are the person's employer, and you feel like ripping your employee off, 'cause your too cheap and greedy to pay your piddlely share of taxes."
I'm not even sure what this means, but I am sure that it is NOT the "only" difference. the way people abuse absolutist words like "only," and "always," and "never" in a desperate attempt to bolster a weak point is just astounding.
"Think this; there is probably some corrupt politician who is more greedy than you between you and that government union employee, who is out taking your hard earned tax dollar, and who is trying not to give it to the union employee, so that he can give that money to himself and his corrupt buddy instead."
his corrupt buddy...you mean like the head of the public sector union?
"If the government union guy can get his fair share from his employer, the corrupt politician will do less of his corrupt thing, and you will have a better chance of getting your fair share from your employer."
govt employees are paid more than the average private sector worker nearly everywhere in the USA. this isn't my opinion, this is a fact. so the premise you're teetering on is false.
"Uh by the way I'm over 21"
chronologically, perhaps. that "Uh" tells me about the rest.
Government employees are paid more than private sector workers because most of them have unions. Private sector workers with unions are usually also paid very well. Private sector workers who do not have any union protection are usually underpaid compared to their union counterparts. Nonunion workers are usually getting ripped off. Ok, so the corrupt politician is still taking your tax money after the government union employee takes his share, and you' re still getting ripped off. Maybe if you were in a union, you'd be making more money too. Bottom line is in this capital economy of ours as an employee you need some big daddy or some big thug protecting your ass or your going to be really screwed silly. Sorry, but I've lived all around this world, and saw too many people working for $2.00 dollars a day because they had no union or other means of collective bargaining. Unions, yes I agree, they have their element of corruption, and I know none of them are boy scouts, but they serve their purpose.
"Government employees are paid more than private sector workers because most of them have unions."
and when you take out the union dues and other expenses of being in the union, the pay is about the same. so the stats are misleading and the money laundering scheme is apparent. our money goes:
from tax payers to union employees to unions to politicians
it couldn't be more obvious, unless you don't want to see it.
"Bottom line is in this capital economy of ours as an employee you need some big daddy or some big thug protecting your ass or your going to be really screwed silly"
more cliche not based in reality. this is you repeating shit you heard, not experienced. I worked in union shop and have family who do. it is as corrupt as the day is long. but in a private company, that's their business.
public sector unions are a money laundering scheme as I demonstrated. they do little more than funnel money to political parties, almost always democrats. it's total bullshit.
Unions are corrupt, like every thing else in this country, but you are on some serious drugs if you think Union pay is about the same after you take out Union dues. It's not even close and i can give you numbers from my own industry and some others that my family works in. Any one advocating against unions is brain dead at best because the pay for union workers is 2X - 3X more in most cases. Add in full benefits packages as well and the gap is even larger.
[Removed]
There was a time when labor unions had gained too much power and had become corrupt. The created policies such as gold-bricking that established completely meaningless jobs. As a result, I didn't like those labor unions back in the Reagan days and was glad to seem them broken down. Now, however, they have been stripped down to where they seem to barely exist. It is a case of having moved from one extreme where the unions earned a bad name for themselves by their own corruption to the other extreme where they are being deprived in states like Wisconsin even of the right to organize.
The fact is, in a democracy, workers have every right in the world to organize in order to face their employers with strength. They SHOULD. Why shouldn't workers negotiate the toughest deals they can with their employers? Why would anyone think they should take whatever is thrown at them? If workers don't unite in order to speak for themselves, who is going to speak for them? Certainly not their employer. Not likely the government.
Labor unions need to earn back the respect they lost by voting out leaders that exhibit corruption or violence or even the appearance of it and by avoiding the creation of useless jobs that add nothing to productivity. These things gave them a stench that many didn't like. But labor unions are necessary. They ARE what created the great middle class in America from the early days of overworked and underpaid factory dolts.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
in private industry, if workers want to unionize, that's fine with me. I doubt they'll be happy with corrupt leadership--which is endemic--and the broken promises, but that is their business.
however when it comes to public unions, that's an entirely different story. that is public money and I do not want them to legally suck tax money and funnel it back to the political class and party that they, ahem, "negotiate" with.
do you honestly not see a the difference? or are you just avoiding it?
I think public employees have as much right to unionize as anyone.
I know from inside observation that tax payers are often very cheap with public employees. My wife works for a municipal government, and I've seen how tax payers don't allow the same minimal office benefits that everyone else takes for granted ... like coffee. I've also seen how people mistreat government employees, telling them their lazy when I know all the people in my wife's department and know they are good hard-working people. I know how hard she works just to hear that she's a lazy employee simply because she works for the government.
I've also seen governments trying to take entitled benefits from employees to balance their budgets. You can't do that! Entitlements are called that because they were a promise from the taxpayers to the employee in the first place. (You can stop offering those benefits to new employees, but you cannot take away what you already owe to those whose time you've taken.) The ONLY reason many people worked for a government agency in the first place was because of the good government retirement or health benefits. Usually (as is definitely the case for my wife) the pay is lower than the private sector (and she could EASILY get a job in the private sector), BUT the benefits are better. Many people like her put in their time because the benefits were so appealing, even though the pay was low. If a government strips its employees of benefits after they have given YEARS of work because those benefits were important to their future, then the government robs those workers of what was promised to them.
We, as taxpayers, have no right to make people promises and then strip away what we promised after years of work. I hear what sound to be efforts made in that direction now at the post office, which is semi-government.
Bottom line, city, county, state and federal employees need unions to protect themselves, too; and they should have the same rights all people have. Government workers are people, too, and I'm against any effort to give them fewer rights than other people enjoy.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
You're asking the USA to be a poor employer.
There's no harm in collective bargaining, both side have to agree.
"You're asking the USA to be a poor employer."
how so? if unions exist primarily to protect the workers from being exploited in the name of profit, who are public employees being protected from?
is it the same people progressives want to run health care?
"There's no harm in collective bargaining, both side have to agree"
there is no "both" when we're talking about unions and left-leaning politicians who will accept campaign contributions from the same people they are "negotiating" with. do you honestly not see how this makes no sense at all?
You have no idea how contract negotiations work.
I write and execute about 6-8 contracts a month. but I'm sure you know more about me than I do. laffs.
do you know how to answer questions? try again...
if unions exist primarily to protect the workers from being exploited in the name of profit, who are public employees being protected from?
is it the same people progressives want to run health care?
you also avoided the FACT that when one side donates the needed lifeblood to the other side (i.e., unions donating money to the political party they nearly always "negotiate" with), there really isn't two sides, as you asserted.
then again, I didn't really expect you to respond. the answer is too much reality when all you want to do is complain and reflexively take the side pop culture tells you is the "cool" one.
You write unions contracts, eh?
You sure leave out a lot of details.
What's this about blood? You write some strange contracts.
Do you work for Nosferatu?
"You write unions contracts, eh?"
that's not what you said. moving the goalposts? are you a 9/11 truther? they elevate goalpost moving to an art form, so I figured I'd ask.
"You sure leave out a lot of details."
you sure avoid lots of questions.
am I asking too much?
if unions exist primarily to protect the workers from being exploited in the name of profit, who are public employees being protected from?
is it the same people progressives want to run health care?
You said you write contracts.
answer the question.
No details about the union contracts you write.
Unions don't exist only for monetary gain. They never did. That's just one part.
I have no idea, what your last question even means, nor what it has to do with this.
"You said you write contracts."
I do. six to eight per month.
in case you didn't know, there are other contracts besides union contracts. really, it's true!
"answer the question." - coming from the person who has now dodged my questions three times, that's just laughable.
"No details about the union contracts you write." - for the second time, I never said I wrote union contracts. you're not too swift on the uptake, are you?
"Unions don't exist only for monetary gain."
I never said they did. point? (in the outside chance you have one)
if these questions are too confusing for you, you're in way over your head, son...
if unions exist primarily to protect the workers from being exploited in the name of profit, who are public employees being protected from?
is it the same people progressives want to run health care?
"nor what it has to do with this."
yep, you're in way the fuck over your head.
Insults?????
Let me know where you work. I'll send over an organizer.
Would you prefer AFL-CIO, or the Teamsters? I might have an in with the UAW.
Son, eh?
You are so naive.
BTW: Pretty good not answering questions. Are you a politician?
"Pretty good not answering questions"
said the bullshitting bullshit artist who has ducked, dodged, and swerved from...
if unions exist primarily to protect the workers from being exploited in the name of profit, who are public employees being protected from?
is it the same people progressives want to run health care?
...four times.
now is your fifth chance to hide under the bed from reality. I know you won't disappoint!
I'll repeat myself for those of you who lack an attention span.
Unions do not exist primarily to protect workers from profit exploitation.
There, I answered your question.
It makes the last one kind of silly.
I'd like to get back to answering your question before this topic went off the rails:
"if unions exist primarily to protect the workers from being exploited in the name of profit, who are public employees being protected from?"
It's a worthy question. Public employees need unions to protect them from taxpayers who will gladly exploit them as much as any employee. Taxpayers do not exploit for the sake of maximizing profits but for the sake of minimizing their losses. That is there right, of course. We should try to make government run efficiently, etc. But the drive for efficiency easily and often runs right over the top of people because taxpayers really have no idea how hard many employees are working and what bleak offices they work in compared to the private sector. So, workers unionize to try to better their situation.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
This is a passionate argument for Scott Walker's campaign to strip unions of the right to collective bargaining. A similar set of regulations was recently overturned by voters in Ohio. Walker is now facing recall, whereas Kasich in Ohio is at dismally low levels in the polls, does not face a similar challenge because there is no recall law in Ohio.
Unions represent working people. The decline of unions, beginning with the so-call "Right to Work" movements of the 80s, had their most earnest advocate in Ronald Reagan whose first act as president was fire all of the air traffic controllers, neutralizing that union.
I believe that unions have saved us from things like the 7-day work week and child labor, but, if you like that kind of thing, the weakening of the unions provide an environment in which Newt Gingrich can argue for that very repeal of child labor laws.
"I believe that unions have saved us from things like the 7-day work week and child labor"
that was about 60-80 years ago. I covered that ("They did a fine and necessary job...").
does that mean they get to continue to exist perpetually?
tell me, how are your efforts to save the typewriter repair industry coming along? marching all over the place for that, too?
Newt wants child labor back to bust the school janitor unions.
I guess we better keep that union around for a while yet.
if you refuse to see the difference between private and public sector labor forces, you're too uninformed to have a reasonable discussion with.
as it turns out, the real reason the public unions in wisconsin flipped out is because their own big business greed was threatened. I suppose you know nothing about WEA Trust and how their rates magically went down when local school boards in WI weren't forced to use them.
nah, didn't think so. well informed? hardly.
Only this: "While WEA Trust officials argue much of the criticism aimed at their company is unfair, they acknowledge that the health insurance market has become more competitive as a result of the collective bargaining law."
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/front_page/article_1a54c656-39a5-575b-bac0-d775f0d698ab.html
I don't think the article supports your point. As a result of the collective bargaining law that removed the insurance carrier from being part of the bargaining process, WEA Trust had to lower its rates to stay competitive. It could no longer keep its rates artificially high since now the school districts weren't bound by the union contract to use them.
The ONLY reason for the obsolescence of Labor Unions is that there are NO MANUFACTURING JOBS.
Workers of the world unite! Organize! Fight the 1%!
"The ONLY reason for ...."
more binary thinking.
no, there are MANY reasons labow unions are obsolete. lack of manufacturing is one of them, but hardly the most important.
the most important is because they aren't nearly as necessary as they once were.
Unions work. Slizzo/Sleazo is a troll.
fixed that for ya...
Public sector unions work at funneling money to the democrat party and corrupt union leadership.
Your hair is bad.
you are dead on about the Unions of Today.
however be careful, Our current Administration is Deeply tucked into Bed with them and you are liable to have big brother watching you.
you don't think he ran unopposed for a senate seat out of Chicago just by sheer luck do ya?
This is like saying we should do away with banking regulations because they no longer engage is risky behaviors. Unions can be likened to anti-depressants. Take an anti-depressant and eventually you feel better, maybe that you're cured. Stop taking them and see the sickness come back on. Unions (much like former banking regulations) came about due to a dire need. Get rid of unions and we will see another period in time when unions are absolutely necessary. Why bother having a cycle when the correction is already being applied?
"This post is like saying "banking regulations are obsolete because banks no longer engage is risky activities.""
yeah, except that it is nothing at all like saying that. banks DO engage in risky activities, so regulation is needed.
in the private sector, most businesses do not abuse their employees. those that do can unionize for all I care. I personally do not think it would help because it simply replaces one exploiter with another. but in a private company, it is none of my business.
however, in the public sector, it is my business. it is every taxpayer's business. if unions exist to protect workers from management that would abuse them for profit, who exactly does a public union protect the workers from? is it the very same people progressives want to run health care? think about it.
"In the private sector most employers do not abuse their employees." This is in large part due to the work of unions over the years. Laws are in place to prevent abuse.
In the public sector, I agree, it is every tax-payer's business. But, what makes you think the government will run a business with better intentions than the private sector? Public unions exist for the same reasons as private unions. If not profit, then tax cuts which would affect their jobs and hinder the collective service they provide communities. Without a teachers union, for example, in tough times government could allow for larger class sizes and fewer teachers which would result in a lower quality education system.
"This is in large part due to the work of unions over the years. Laws are in place to prevent abuse."
exactly! which is why labor unions are now obsolete. glad we got that out of the way.
"what makes you think the government will run a business with better intentions than the private sector?"
govt does not run a business.
"Public unions exist for the same reasons as private unions."
I disagree. private unions protect employees from abusive management/ownership. the abuse is driven by the desire for higher profits. there is no higher profits to be had in the public sector.
I do not buy the tax cuts argument because if taxes were cut too severely (as if!), and salaries were decreased, there would be no one to do the essential jobs (police, teachers, firefighters, sanitation, etc.)
it is a much different argument, but I also do not buy the idea that smaller classes result in better education. test scores show that in the last 20+ years, smaller class sizes have not, in any way, increased education results. it is a fallacy perpetuated by teachers unions to pad their rolls and politicians are only too happy to go along because they know the more public employees paying union due, the more money coming back to them as campaign contributions. it is a bullshit money laundering scheme, and it's pretty obvious.
Did you read all of what I said? If you get rid of unions a time will again come about when they are greatly needed. Unions are the corrective action. It would be naive to believe employers would treat non-union employees the same way as those in a union.
And, you don't buy the tax cuts thing? Police and firefighters have already been laid off. Also, larger class sizes DO lead to a decline in education results. Studies have been done. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED475012&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED475012
Just because you "do not buy" something, does not make it so.
You seem to have your mind made up one way or another despite any other information. You've made that clear by disregarding some of my statements to act like you've said anything correct.
"If you get rid of unions a time will again come about when they are greatly needed."
hey, we may lose electricity and then what will we do with no typewriter repairmen around? I guess we better spend millions and millions to keep them around, no matter how much we don't need them now.
"It would be naive to believe employers would treat non-union employees the same way as those in a union."
I've worked in both. I see little to no difference. The union leadership is typically corrupt, and they protect dangerous idiots. The non union company provided excellent benefits, flex time, and now I work from home because there is no need to be in an office. But I must be something special, huh? No way my situation is indicative of anyone else. That would be naive.
actually, what's naive is repeating tired old cliches that ignore reality and changing conditions in society, culture, and employment. like race-obsessed progressives who still think it is 1959 Jim Crow and gender-obsessed femnist professors of women's studies who still think there is a glass ceiling, paranoid anti-capitalist union champions still think it is 1904 with child labor and 7 day work weeks.
I guess they have to protect their rackets some way.
"Police and firefighters have already been laid off." - see how useless unions are?
Technology won't revert. Working conditions can. Your analogy is weak. My electricity is working, guess we can get rid of generators. My car is running well, guess I no longer need oil.
You seem to think weak analogies and generalizations prove your point. Glass ceilings do exist. Voting laws are still being made that disenfranchise certain parts of the population. Your "gut" feeling on these things doesn't make them so. Take the time and do the research. It doesn't help to be stubborn in your opinions when there is enough material to show you otherwise.
if you are admitting that unions are not needed, but should be kept anyway because we might need them again, that's weak. so a weak analogy is suitable, imo.
btw, it isn't technology that would revert, it is a lack of electricity. there is a difference. the point is, you dont carry the burden and cost for something you dont need because you might need it, maybe, sometime down the line. and when it is (in the public sector) little more than a money laundering scheme, you never need it. it should be eliminated immediately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Have you seen the movie DALLAS ?! Do you want to get rid of cunning people (J.R.)!? Vote petition on the Internet : http://wh.gov/jkl
While it is still barely in its infancy OWS would not have survived as long as it has without the support of organized labor. Beyond that, in the absence of a mass labor party or other mechanisms of class defense, until the emergence of OWS literally the only institutions that working people had to defend them were labor unions. Beyond that even if you accept the premise that labor unions have outlived their usefulness, what conclusions can you draw from that? That the state should declare them illegal? I thought that conservatives, really the only political force actively opposed to labor unions was opposed to a strong state and in the absence of state intervention how is a prohibition on the capacity of workers to organize themselves going to be enforced. Thank god for labor unions Long live labor unions. All power to labor unions. Solidarity Forever!
If OWS Lets organize labor stand by them then OWS is no different than big business giving to the GOP or the DNC. You are the same. So really, what is so wrong with it? When you try to gain power, all of this will come out and it will show that you are really just the same old thing.
[Removed]
"Beyond that even if you accept the premise that labor unions have outlived their usefulness, what conclusions can you draw from that?"
I know you answered this for me, but here's my answer anyway: Follow FDR's advice and declare PUBLIC unions illegal. If private employees want it, I have no problem with that. Some I support (service unions in Las Vegas are a perfect example), some are corrupt to the core (ILA is a perfect example). But that is their business. OTOH, when it is so obviously a racket that funnels money back to the people they negotiate with and keeps them in power...I mean really, can you turn off the kneejerk and see it for the tax money burning circle jerk that it is?
now, about that bridge...
To declare anything illegal is to impart some power to the state to enforce its prohibition, which to me seems antithetical to conservative values. As far as OWS goes, it would not exist were it not for unions, including public unions. Among other things it stores large quantitites of its supplies in some unused office space of the United Federation of Teachers, and AFL-CIO affiliate. That, of course is small potatoes, but it is just one example of the solidarity that the labor movement and in this case a union of public employees, has extended to OWS.
[Removed]
"which to me seems antithetical to conservative values"
I did ask you to turn off the kneejerk reaction. Hate to disappoint you, and I know it will be painful to find out you're wrong, but I am not what you think I am. While I do I lean right on fiscal issues, I'd be called extremely left on social/personal freedom issues by most people, and I am moderate on foreign policy. So not quite a libertarian, definitely not a libeal, and not "a conservative" as you want me to be with this silly "gotcha" nonsense. State power should be used judiciously, not never.
ows's reliance on labor unuions couldn't possibly mean less to me. not sure why you keep bringing that up.
I'm not predisposed to think I know what anyone thinks or is. My own thoughts are pretty tentative most of the time which is why I tend to eschew labels which is why I approached my defense of unions from two entirely different perspectives. From a libertarian or conservative perspective it seems to me that declaring unions illegal would require enforcement mechanisms on the part of the state which libertarians and conservatives tend to eschew as a matter of principle. From the point of view of OWS it is self defeating to be opposed to unions as all the evidence suggests that at several critical junctures OWS might well have ceased to exist were it not for the intervention of organized labor.
maybe the problem is binary thinking?
libertarian/republican vs liberal (how the hell do libertarian and gop get joined?)
1% vs 99% (ridiculous beyond words)
right vs left (bullshit false dichotomy)
DNC vs GOP (they BOTH suck)
everything is awful vs everything is perfect (neither is either)
how many issues in this world really are all one thing or another and no other options exist? 10? 12? (love is good, rape and murder is bad, Black Sabbath rules)
it sure as shit doesn't apply to a govt, economy or a workable philosophy on how those ought to run that has more depth than a petri dish!
At the risk of being accused of labelling or stereotyping, your views as you express them do seem kind of Randian to me in the sense of not having much regard for the intelligence of your fellow humans. At least to me that is how you seem to present yourself and please forgive me if I am misunderstanding you. My problem with Rand, besides her self assured selfishness and studied lack of compassion for her fellows, is, who gets to decide who the smart guys are who get to run things and what do you do if you figure out you're not one of them.
can you explain how I come across as a Randian?
"who gets to decide who the smart guys are..." in a perfect world, an unfettered marketplace of ideas and consumer or scholastic response. in our world, same, but it sure ain't perfect. but it is the best system out there.
"who get to run things" elections.
"...and what do you do if you figure out you're not one of them." depends if you want to be one of them. I don't. and despite that, I'm pretty happy overall. I like my job, I like my salary, and much more importantly, I enjoy the life I have with my family and friends. I really don't care that others have more than me, some fairly and some not. I do care that some struggle because of unfairness, but that's life. hasn't everyone seen the ups and downs of life? one size does not fit all, which is why I personally resent being lumped in with everyone who isn't part of the 1%.
Some of the things you say don't seem very compassionate to me and otherwise, as I said, you don't seem to have a very high regard for the intelligence of your fellows. I have a lot of difficulty finding empathy with a perspective like that or identifying with it in any way. In some respects, and I really don't mean to put you down, but I think I find it easier to talk to a crack addict. I have a profound commitment and belief in democracy. I firmly believe that ordinary people have the capacity to run the world collectively, they just haven't figured it out yet. One of the greatest things about the occupations is that they are places where people are very consciously struggling toward that goal and they are not at all naive about it. They realize full well that it will take at least years, probably decades and perhaps several lifetimes.
you're just repeating yourself.
I asked you WHY you get this impression, not that you get this impression. I picked that up the first time you mentioned it.
if it helps, I detest the lame cliche that "everyone's an idiot." there are plenty of idiots out there, but by no means are they close to the majority.
still, I don't know why you get this impression of me. want to give it another shot?
Well I took a brief peruse of this thread only to discover that it started out with a discussion about the legality of public unions. With regard to anything else I may well have you confused with somebody else. I talk to a lot of people on line. With regard to labor unions, I believe that all working people ought to have the right to organize themselves to bargain with the boss whether that boss is part of civil society or a government agency. Ultimately it is really the only defense working people have, especially in a society when they haven't organized any other kind of institutions to protect them, as, for example, a labor party.
As a working person I really can't see what difference it makes who the boss is, whether it is a corporation or a propriator or a government agency. From my point of view as a working person I don't see how it makes any difference. As working people we need to be able to protect ourselves from the excesses of the boss no matter who that boss happens to be.
I also happen to be in favor of a much expanded public sector. That is, in periods of high unemployment the state ought to be the employer of last resort. That's an issue of how we take care of unemployment. Leaving it up to the market doesn't seem to have worked all that well. There are lots of infrastructure issues that need to be addressed. Thousands of bridges need to be repaired. Hundreds of thousands of miles of rail road track needs to be built. There is a treat to close down 14,000 post offices. They need to be kept open and staffed. I remember when mail was delivered twice a day 6 days a week. That should be reinstituted. Teachers are being laid off all over the place. That should not only stop but thousands of new teachers should be hired. There are all kinds of services that would enrich our society which need to be instituted or put back in place.
There is tremendous wealth in our society to be able to pay for this. There is no deficit crisis. What the deficit crisis is really all about internationally are vast wealth transfers to the super rich from everybody else. If we take it back we will have more than enough for all we need, but one of the things we will need to do that is a strong labor movment including a strong labor movement in the public sector.
BTW I was once a labor organizer and I got fired by the union for trying to organize the organizers. Labor unions are among the most exploitive of employers. I think everybody needs and deserves a union. Solidarity forever!
"Well I took a brief peruse of this thread only to discover that it started out with a discussion about the legality of public unions."
Not really. I started this thread and my point was that they are obsolete, not whether they should be legal or not. I later stated that I think public sector unions should not be legal.
"With regard to anything else I may well have you confused with somebody else."
I am certain that you do.
"Labor unions are among the most exploitive of employers."
No doubt. They are also among the most corrupt organizations.
I'd still like to know who public sector employees need protection from. It would seem to be the same people progressives want to run health care. Can you see the logical disconnect there? Why would anyone want potentially abusive management types in charge of health care? Makes no sense at all.
If unions are truely obsolete then it should be up to the membership as to whether they want them or not. If they are truely obsolete then people would simply not organize them. On the contrary though, most polls show that most non union members would join a union if they had the opportunity to do so. It is only restrictive American labor laws that is preventing them. The US has the most restrictive and complicated set of administrative labor law of any industrialized democracy, which goes a long way toward explaining why less than 10% of the US labor force has been able to organize itself, whereas in Europe union membership tends to be 50 or 60% of the work force.
"If unions are truely obsolete then it should be up to the membership as to whether they want them or not."
In a private company, yes. When it comes to public employees, not so. That is taxpayer money, and I think most tax payers oppose the added expense with ZERO benefit.
"If they are truely obsolete then people would simply not organize them."
That's very naive.
Private sector unionization is down because they are obsolete. That is why the unions moved towards public employees in their desperation to remain relevant.
A boss is a boss is a boss from the workers point of view. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I know people (Ralph Nader for example) that think people who work for nonprofits shouldn't be allowed to organize themselves because they should view such work as a calling rather than a job. Bullshit. A boss is a boss is a boss. Among other things it's a First Amendment right. It is called freedom of association. What one does with that association is another matter. Of course people don't have the freedom to associate to plan to rob a liquor store. But there are a lot of activities that would also be protected that public employees could engage in collectively in order to improve their working conditions.
I could be wrong, but I got the impression somewhere that you were against the widespread extension of the public sector. Regardless of your position, my own feeling is that the state should be the employer of last resort, especially in difficult economic times. It's a way of putting people back to work and increasing the social wage at the same time.
If that is the case, and the public sector became larger and larger, then any restriction on public workers right to bargain would mean that fewer and fewer workers would have the right to bargain, circumscribing democracy as the right to bargain is the beginning of real economic democracy.
In Communist societies and even in some western societies like Sweden, the state is virtually the only employer. Regarless of the totalitarian character of the state, the fact is the argument would be the same, and in fact the same argument was used by the state when Polish workers first organized themselves. That is that workers demanding an independent union were actually acting against the interest of taxpayers, other workers and society as a whole. The same argument, it seems to me, that you were making vis a vis the US.
These are arguments that elites always make when ordinary people try to organize themselves. Whether we are talking about Communist Poland or the US. The only difference is that in the US there is the illusion of democracy because two different factions of the 1% organize themselves into two different political parties, but in both instances they are the parties of the 1% and in either case the working stiff gets screwed whether he works for a corporation or the state.
It keeps being brought up because the unions represent solidarity and numbers of supporters added to the movement. For once, I agree with you. Unions are an antiquated and historical footnote. They had their place in history and have brought about many benefits for workers rights, however... this is the 21st century, not the 19th...
Lenin also argued against having unions in the old Soviet Union. The have the ability to challenge the government Lenin said....
[Removed]
You're right. Watch your back.
FDR allowed public workers unions.
Also, labor unions are generally more efficient, they're just less profitable: i.e. they don't allow the bosses to soak as much money for the shareholders. There's actually a number of economics papers on that.
"FDR allowed public workers unions."
dead wrong. face reality:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
"labor unions are generally more efficient"
comedy gold!
[Removed]
Unions had there time, unfortunatly, and like alot of other things, power breeds greed. Now unions are no more than retierment coffers for the heads of them. The leaders of most if not all of the major unions do nothing less criminal than the banks. Why is OWS not protesting them?
"Why is OWS not protesting them?"
because they are kneejerk, boilerplate leftists who cannot think past the script.
sad, isn't it?
YUP! I'm just curious to see if any of them care to answer. They are very good at complaining about an issue, but very poor at using factual information or legitimate reform ideas to the table. They are also very good at avoiding questions that they know they can't answer.
I agree, especially with "They are also very good at avoiding questions that they know they can't answer."
that is a serial problem with the people here. these nitwits will avoid pointed questions over and over and over. they simply will not face anything that blows a tiny bit of reality into their stinky tents of self-imposed bullshit unreality. I used to spend a lot of time online debunking 9/11 truthers. the ows asshats are EXACTLY like those assholes. I'd be worried about the future of the country if I thought they were representative of more than 5-10% of younger people. I am, after all, an optimist.
Think about it, the premise of any good conspiracy theory is that there argument is unprovable. They provide enough of a story to make it sound good but leave holes wide enough to park the space station in. You can't argue with them because apparently mommy didn't spend enough time with them when they were children that they need something to latch on to making them feel important for once in there lives.
it's funny 'cuz it's true. well said.
what always made me laugh was how certain they were and then how quickly they folded after ONE question that blew a hole in ONE of their silly talking points. seemed if they let a single point go their entire world would come crashing down on them. that said, I think most have some form of mild mental illness.
If you look, 99% of them are followers. Take global warming for instance. Those fools bought it from Al Gore hook, line and sinker. As soon as his own scientists get busted talking about how much bullshit it is, you hear nothing else about it. Crickets........
Talking about FDR, you know that he won because HOOVER killed the 'bonus boyz', just like now OBAMA is going to kill many OWS children.
This will cause the loss of Obama's 2nd term, but will we get another FDR? We can only pray, but like the Bonus-Boys of 1932, which is exactly like the OWS-BOYz/Girls of 2011, the streets will run with blood and the Obama goverment will roll tanks over the children and this will destory Obama's 2nd term, God pray that an FDR steps forward to fill the void. This GREAT 2nd Depression we're now entering will be far worse than the last.
Hilarious.
130 years ago in the USA the 1% were the railroads and steel industry, post slavery all were made slaves to be fodder to build the railroad, the toil resulted in the unions, in turn the 1% created 'modern police force' in Boston in 1890. So the cop today that mace you and beat you came from the 1%, but the Unions are why the 1% created the police-force, the beauty of course is that the 1% didn't have to pay for the Pinkerton's, as it was taxpayer funded the 99% paid for their own enslavement. Jump to today, the only large powerful opposition we have had in HISTORY to the 1% CORPORATE power was the unions.
Now I'm NO friend of unions and can say I hate unions also, because they're leaders are now 1%er's, but essentially the little union men/women at the bottom are still the only hope of long lasting opposition to Fascist power in the USA.
It could be very well that OWS is/was engineered by the CIA, just like they did in the Arab-Spring world, but here with the explicit goal of making the public think that OWS nutcases were union.
I think the UNIONS have and had a great American History worth remembering and honoring. If GOOD people step forward to represent their unions, in the spirit of Emma Goldman and such of the past, then Unions can be a good thing.
One last thing on 'policing' traditional old America, the policing was done by sheriff elected by the people, and his deputy 's didn't beat your children cuz he knew where his paycheck came, the judges were regular people. Post 1890 Boston the modern city police force became a tool of the plutocrat, outsiders were hired largely from faraway ( think ireland ) to bash the heads of union children, and the courts were filled with judges loyal to the kleptocrat, Today we have what we have, but never forget that the UNIONS gave their life and blood to fight the 1%
Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson filled with things I already knew. I believe I summed that all up a bit more succinctly with "They did a fine and necessary job..."
FWIW, I have no problem with private industry unions. I don't think they are worth a shit, but if people in a given industry want it and the vote is legit, that's their business.
OTOH, public sector unions are an unmitigated disaster in every way imaginable. And who are those workers being protected from anyway? Is it the same people many progressives want to be in charge of health care? How the hell does that make any sense? Are we to believe that the same govt managers who are on the brink of abusing their public sector employees if not for the union are the same caring, compassionate and wonderful angels who will administer national health care and everything will be swell?
What a complete joke.
The only group more obsolete than labor unions is the progressive movement. But it's a racket for far too many politically connected hacks and poverty pimps who need to claim we still live in 1890s child labor days or 1959 Jim Crow. We're don't. Righteousness won those battles and there is nothing wrong with recognizing the progress we have made. Institutional racism has been defeated (see: Obama, President Barack). Treating employees the right way is good business. Women can do whatever they want. Time to pack it in and move on to other personal freedom issues like ending the drug war, winning the gay marriage fight, and reducing govt interference in the thousands of places it has no business in.
[Removed]