Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Unions

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 28, 2011, 9:27 a.m. EST by PathOfLeasedExistence (0) from Jersey City, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Sympathetic with the views EXCEPT the union busting. Unions are worse than what they replaced and operate under the guise of protecting the workers. Last several carpenter's union officials and local 32bj president all ended up in jail for stealing worker's money. Bust those unions and give us our money back!

23 Comments

23 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 13 years ago

"Unions are worse than what they replaced"

My guess is you have no idea what they replaced. Here is just one example; the 40-hour work week.

1825 - people went on strike because they wanted a 10 hour work day. 1835 - Children employed in the silk mills in Paterson, NJ went on strike for the 11 hour day/6 day week. 1884 - The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, forerunner of the AFL, passed a resolution stating that "8 hours shall constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886." Though the Federation did not intend to stimulate a mass insurgency, its resolution had precisely that effect.

If you are really interested look up why the miners struck. That would be a real eye opener.

Some of what has unions have given all of the American people:

a 40-hour work week improved and safer working conditions child labor laws living wage sick leave 2 breaks during the work day vacations and paid vacations overtime pay health insurance

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

systems have become automated 130 years forward

is a 40 work day still necessary ?

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 13 years ago

LOL! Exactly! You are talking about if a 40-day work week is necessary and without unions and the changes they made you'd have a 112-hour work week and that would be mandatory! Quite a difference isn't there?

Workers in this country were little more than paid slaves before unions. It's nothing like it is today. The men and women who stood their ground and/or died all of those years ago today allow you to wonder if we really need a 40-hour work week.

In many places you lived in company housing, you bought from the company store and by the time you got paid most of it was gone back to the company. It was a vicious cycle that they couldn't get out of.

Coal miners lived horrific lives. When I was growing up in Central Indiana I knew countless families with relatives who had died in mine explosions, including mine. Safety regulations were nonexistent and the company didn't care as long as they kept getting the coal out one way or the other.

People lived a vastly different life before the unions came to be and thankfully no one growing up now knows what that was like. All anyone hears is the rhetoric pushed by the corporations. They want the unions out. They can then start cutting away all of those benefits from that 40-hour work week to vacations, etc.

In the Triangle Shirt Factory fire in the early 1900s about 150 +/- women died in a fire of a shirt factory. They had died because women were locked in and couldn't get out. Locking people into their workplace wasn't an isolated incident. That's why unions were started.

You might find this article an interesting read: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45b/030.html

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

Sixteen Tons | Tennessee Ernie Ford

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zE1-48AAYc

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 13 years ago

Yep! In another song there is something about company store. Or is that the same song?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

I can't support the violence mentioned by that song

Midnight Oil - Blue Sky Mine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofrqm6-LCqs&feature=relmfu

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 13 years ago

I never agree with violence.

[-] 2 points by bronxj (150) 13 years ago

I have no problem with private sector unions where both sides , labor and management, have skin in the game. I do have a problem with collective bargaining as practiced by public sector unions where the side supposedly representing the taxpayers ( including those taxpayers who do not belong to public sector unions) bargain with our, not their own, money . All Union members are given the opportunity to vote on a contract before it is approved. All taxpayers should be given the same opportunity. All municipal labor contracts and any existing pereferntial legislation (eg special tax treatment of municipal pensions vs private sector pensions, etc) should be subject to voter referendum and ratification. Those who must burden the costs should have a say which they currently don't.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

so those with the money that pay taxes control the government spending ?

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 13 years ago

I don't understand your reply. If a contract is put up for ratification by voter referendum its “one man one vote”. If a piece of preferential legislation is put up for ratification its “one man one vote”. It’s not “I pay $10,000 a year in income tax so I get 10,000 votes

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

then why call the humans tax payers

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 13 years ago

Because the overwhelming majority of people will at some point pay or be liable for some sort of tax whether it’s an income tax, sales tax, usage tax or whatever.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

It happens that I've known Kevin Doyle, one of the top people at 32bj, for some decades. They asked him to come in because he's honest and really cares about making things better for working people.

Organizations change when the leadership changes. That is especially true for unions.

[-] 2 points by JoshG (1) from Vancouver, BC 13 years ago

You cannot judge all unions based on one example.

When unions are working as they should they protect the interests of their workers. Unions protect workers from unfair practices of employers. They can empower workers to demand higher wages and better working conditions.

Unfortunately, unions are sometimes corrupt. They steal from workers without adding much value. They enforce ridiculous rules that make it nearly impossible to run a productive business.

I support the unions that are working as they should.

[-] 1 points by Democracydriven (658) 13 years ago

When we get done busting the unions we need to start on the catholic priests because they are all molesters, then let's start on wall street because they are all crooked, then let’s start on politicians because they are all crooked, the let's start on anti-abortion groups because they are all terrorist

That is what you are saying correct. If one is bad they all are bad.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

I heard some company was busted for stealing the money the workers earned

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 13 years ago

Unions are like hedge funds. The workers are their capital and they exploit that capital for profits.

[-] 0 points by daverao (124) 13 years ago

I quit OWS when I found out unions are funding it. I am not against good unions. Union agenda right now is keep it alive till Nov 2012. I monitored all the individual occupy protest like Walmart and Verizon. Both were union dictated protests in name of OWS. OWS wake up. You are being branded as anti republican vote for Obama movement

[-] -1 points by jay1975 (428) 13 years ago

When dues are primarily spent on political contributions, inflated union boss pay and lavish vacations, it becomes obvious that the union leaders are part of the 1%. They have shown support for illegal aliens because that is a Democrat platform issue even though it undermines their legal workers ability to succeed. I have no issue with workers organizing and bargaining for their benefits and wages, but when outside groups like AFL-CIO and SEIU step in, then it gets bad. My father-in-law was forced to "retire" 15 years earlier than he needed to (age 50) so that a kid half his age could take his management job for much lower pay and the UAW did nothing to help him and his "retirement" package is pathetic. Screw the big unions, they are nothing but the non-elected arm of the Democrat party.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by jay1975 (428) 13 years ago

The problem is that too many people have been programmed to think that big unions are the only way people can get fair wages and benefits. The larger union heads actually don't have a problem with jobs being shipped out of the country either as they are trying to start a global union movement. It would be pathetic if it weren't for the fact that are hurting the people they claim they are trying to help.

[Removed]