|
On March 09 2011 06:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 06:16 MethodSC wrote:On March 09 2011 03:43 Tien wrote:
You guys don't get it.
The more you unionize, the less competitive your economy becomes, and the more corporations will outsource. Q.F.T. Well, damn, let's all get on the work 60 hours a week for 1.5$/hour bandwagon. I mean, the Chinese are doing it, it's got to be a good idea. You first. Or do you not actually mean what you say, and are just aiming to show how things that you disagree with on a political basis, are a Bad Idea?
Plenty of people aren't in a Union. They don't work 60 hours a week and they make more then $1.5/hour.
|
It's a catch 22.
We can't get rid of unions, because individuals aren't properly protected without them. We need to improve the economy to get out of this slump, but unions are a cancer on the economy. Individuals and corporations/government both have metaphorical guns pointed at one another, and its causing problems for everybody.
However, by saying that unions should be abolished, you're essentially laying down the people's weapon, in the hopes that the corporations, and the government, will lay down theirs.
How confident do you feel of that?
|
On March 09 2011 07:00 Dugrok wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 06:51 Klive5ive wrote:
Unions are useful for a lot of things, such as providing legal aid for their members.
They need to be better regulated though in my opinion:
1) Striking or any form of mass disruption should be illegal.
2) Union bosses shouldn't be allowed to earn more than 2 times the average wage of their member. Why should striking be illegal? How else are they going to get noticed?
Striking is and should be illegal depending on the kind of work involved. People who are responsible for the wellbeing of others (teachers, medical workers, etc) are generally prohibited from striking.
Striking that just reduces a companies profits is fine.
|
On March 09 2011 06:19 Carras wrote:Show nested quote +
The more you unionize, the less competitive your economy becomes, and the more corporations will outsource.
globalization ROCKS! with no unions it means that no matter where you live.. you will be paid the lowest salary possible..just becouse somewhere where there are no labour laws and people get exploited, can do it cheaper =)
And the people who are willing to work for the lowest salary get the jobs. Justice served.
|
Think about it if your a teacher or any job really that age doesnt matter. If there arnt unions you can fire or not extend contracts just becasue of their age so you can hire someone just out of college who will come in at half to 3/4 pay. If you get injured at a job or even not at work and have to miss time with no union guess what, your gonna be looking for a job with no workmens comp.
|
On March 09 2011 06:51 Klive5ive wrote:
Unions are useful for a lot of things, such as providing legal aid for their members.
They need to be better regulated though in my opinion:
1) Striking or any form of mass disruption should be illegal.
2) Union bosses shouldn't be allowed to earn more than 2 times the average wage of their member.
1. Let's party like it's 1931 bring back the good old days, let's ban demonstrations just like they did in Egypt. I hope everyone in this thread realises the vital part organized labour played in the democracy uprising in egypt if not here's a piece from democracynow on the subject.+ Show Spoiler +http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/egyptian_uprising_fueled_by_striking_workers
2. It might be a sensible suggestion to regulate the pay of representatives, but the real wage discreapancy between owner's and the rest of the workers is what really needs to be regulated. While the Wisconsin workers are getting tax increases, the uber rich are getting tax cuts.
|
On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote:
Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever.
If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy.
Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase.
And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs...
|
On March 09 2011 07:03 Phelski wrote:
Think about it if your a teacher or any job really that age doesnt matter. If there arnt unions you can fire or not extend contracts just becasue of their age so you can hire someone just out of college who will come in at half to 3/4 pay. If you get injured at a job or even not at work and have to miss time with no union guess what, your gonna be looking for a job with no workmens comp.
You don't understand, benefits aren't solely because of unions. Non-unionized workers have had benefits before unions. It's just negotiated with the individual.
So many of you don't understand. You won't get fired because you aren't in a union, you'll get fired because you aren't working as hard as someone else will. Or you aren't as suited for the job as someone else is. It's a trade-off, if they pay less they get less-intelligent/suitable workers, and thus their company performs worse. Less efficient company, less customer satisfaction.
The reason non-unionized workers can still get paid great wages is because that's what they're worth to the company. And because they're getting paid exactly what they're worth, then there's no inefficiency involved in the hiring process.
Unions are built for equality. People don't want to work as hard as others with the same job, but want to be paid the same. They also want to still be able to work, even if they're severely underperforming. You can't blame people for feeling that, but it doesn't mean that unions are necessary.
Edit: In fact, here's a rudimentary example from my own life right now. I applied for a summer job, they phoned me offering $16/hour. That's a decent wage for the job, 50% more than minimum. Non-union job. I stated that I was going to decline the job, based on the fact it's a 40 minute drive from where I'll live, and gas cost would add up.
So they phoned back 20 min later, offering to add in mileage pay. I get a benefit offered, and a decent wage, based on the fact I'm a better candidate than any other applicants. Because they want the job done right, and they're willing to offer more for it.
|
At the time when Workers rights where becoming an issue and the birth of unions in the USA I'd say and so would most folks it was something needed. It ended dangerous and poor work conditions gave people the ability to survive on a wage and insured the end of child labour and slave like labour. The events where indeed bloody violent and brutal struggles.
However, that's no longer the case today.
If you want to know why the automotive industry blew up in the USA ask anyone in the union for the autoworkers. Companies like GM had deals to insure every worker gets his pension and health care after retirement. That's not a bad thing until you realize the baby boom retirement and suddenly you have so many retired plant workers to a point the majority of GM's income was going to pay this stuff. It wasn't sustainable(hey doesn't this sound like what people are saying about Social Security?) and in the end it imploded and the company had to be bailed out to stay afloat.
Union contracts caused that, the greed of union leaders caused that. Gm's ignorance for allowing it caused that. No ones clean of blame not even the workers as it doesn't take a suit and a economic degree to know that this was coming(it's a topic that was discussed sense the 90's).
Unions are good in theory but not so much when they end up killing the company and in turn the jobs they are supposed to protect.
For the private industry I am fine with unions so long as the leaders have a idea of sustainability in mind and ideally are not paid for being the leaders of said union.(Union leader greed rival's evil ceo's greed). For the government workers I just don't see the reason except to make sure the work conditions are fair and safe. The last thing a city needs is a police or teacher for striking and they shouldn't be able to.
|
+ Show Spoiler [LICD Comics] +
As I said in my earlier reply... Unions over in america seem to be behaving alot worse than the unions in europe.
And this seems to be a debate majorly dominated by Americans and Canadians, who I get the feeling sees the whole debate iether as black or white.
Did something happen recently in the US to spark the debate?
|
The big issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere is Public unions. Public unions have only existed since 1960 or so, and were only created as a political ploy by Democrats. It has been incredibly successful. AFSCME, the biggest public union, spends tens of million of dollars in every election, and about 95% (seriously) of it goes to Democrats.
Walker and other Republican governors are not only morally right to go after Unions and their abuses in order to balance state budgets, but politically savvy, as elimination of public unions would be a major body blow to Democratic campaigns.
|
On March 09 2011 01:41 Ferrose wrote:If you have been following the news lately, you would know about the labor protests in Wisconsin. Well, in Michigan, the same thing is happening. + Show Spoiler [article] +In a scene similar to protests in Madison, Wisc., hundreds of firefighters and union members from around the state have jammed the rotunda of the Michigan Capitol building protesting what they call anti-union legislation percolating in the Legislature.
Loudly chanting, "Shame on you" and "We are union," the protesters can be heard loudly in the Senate chamber, where bills to strengthen the powers of emergency financial managers for distressed cities and school districts were expected to be acted upon today.
It is the first time a union-led protest -- several in recent weeks -- has spilled into the Capitol and caused a ruckus. The Senate continued its agenda, but the shouts from the lobby were a distraction.
"They've awakened a sleeping giant," said Bill Black, a lobbyist for the Teamsters union who stood in the crowd closest to the Senate chamber.
Pro-union demonstrators in the Wisconsin Capitol building have occupied it to protest Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walkter's push to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees there.
The Michigan Senate sergeants-at-arms were watching the crowd warily to assure it did not attempt to enter the chamber, where decorum is strictly enforced.
Several dozen union supporters sat quietly in the Senate gallery, while the protesters shouted outside the chamber.
The emergency financial manager legislation is viewed by unionists as a plot to take over communities and school districts with state-appointed managers that could nullify employee union contracts and even dissolve councils and school boards to regain financial solvency.
Firefighters and police have led the opposition to the bills.
"We're here to show our support and solidarity for our brothers," said Tom Zalwacki, a member of United Steelworkers Local 8339 in Jackson, who was among the protesters in the Capitol rotunda. Now, I understand why labor unions were made in the first place. It was a necessity because of how workers were mistreated in the nineteenth century. And unions have been the base of things like fair wages, employee benefits, etc.. But do we still need them today? Should public occupations (like firefighters mentioned in the article) be allowed to have unions? If we get rid of them, what should we do? To me, it seems like unions abuse their power in the modern world. I do not believe that unions are inherently bad, but maybe it's just that the people in them are bad. Could we replace the things they fight for with simple legislation? What do you guys think?
some unions abuse their power, but how is that really a relevant argument when corporations abuse their power as well? And, without unions, What other force do you know of to counterbalance the corporate influence/corruption in this country?
"but maybe it's just that the people in them are bad."
How do you expect to be take seriously when you start your "idea" off with an offensive generalization of a few million people?
Unions are indeed necessary. The government can't force companies to raise their wages, change certain things, etc without being regulatory to the point of being asinine. to do that, you'd have more people working for the government than in private companies, just to keep an eye on private companies. Unions serve a necessary function
|
Rich people won't give up their unions; neither should anyone else.
|
United States7481 Posts
On March 09 2011 07:08 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote:
Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever. If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy. Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase. And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs...
PLEASE get your facts right. the Wisconsin teachers are NOT NOT NOT complaining for more. They have accepted cuts. They are protesting because the governor wants to take away all power the union has to collectively bargain.
|
Unions are a way to change the power balance from the few to the plenty, that itself should be such a strong democratic incentive for western countries to allow them. Sure, they can be corrupt, sure sometimes they don't work well.
However, they are not a cancer to the economy, there is alot of academic litterature that proves otherwise. Plenty of strong economies have strong unions, so it's not something that necessary hurts the economy. My guess is that strong unions might even save the US economy in the long run. The lack of unions and the destructiveness of the US way of running capitalism does waste alot of potential growth and social capital. The amount of poverty in the US is a huge problem and it's going away, it's increasing.
Unions might be able to raise the capital and give incentive to recreate an US heavy industrial economy again, in the footsteps of the spanish cooperative success Mondragon and several other latin american cooperatives.
|
Whoever has the power will abuse it. There is a natural ebb and flow in the rise and decline of unions. As businesses abuse employees (unpaid work, no healthcare or time off even for sickness, erratic scheduling, workplace abuse by management) unions become stronger. As unions abuse power (demanding unreasonable benefits/pay/vacation) unions begin to dissolve.
I am totally for this give and take process but if I HAD to pick a side (gun to my head) id rather employees abuse the business. I would be really surprised if there have been many times in which union workers were uncompromising on demands that would put a company out of business, but I know businesses have NO problem being uncompromising when making demands that will make an employee homeless.
|
On March 09 2011 07:31 Antoine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 09 2011 07:08 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 01:47 goiflin wrote:
Yes, they are necessary, I think. While I won't disagree that unions are abusing their power, if unions didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be long until employers got to "have their way" with their employees again, regardless of legislation. Governments make rules in favour of big companies all the time, I don't see why this would be any different.
If anything, I think unions shouldn't be allowed to abuse their powers in the ways that they do, rather than banning them outright or whatever. If employers would "have their way" with their employees then how come unions are paid more than their non-union counterparts? Union workers are paid way too much for their services imo and it is just driving costs up which we can't deal with in this economy. Public sector unions should not have the right to wage bargain because they are paid by the american people through taxes and the taxpayer does not get a say in the bargaining process. The person who is representing the government can easily agree on a wage higher than what they would have done if it was a legitimate company that has to make a profit to survive because they can just raise taxes or add to the debt. Anytime people complain they will get a wage increase. And the Wisconsin teachers are just so selfish. Complaining for more when the people who are paying for their already overpriced jobs are struggling economically and losing their jobs... PLEASE get your facts right. the Wisconsin teachers are NOT NOT NOT complaining for more. They have accepted cuts. They are protesting because the governor wants to take away all power the union has to collectively bargain.
Really wanted to emphasize this point by Antoine. I've seen a few posts in the last couple of pages repeating the strawman that the teachers are demanding a pay raise.
|
i live in wisconsin and id have to say walker is the biggest asshole i've ever seen. some of our state senators are in illinois because they dont want this bill to pass. is not just unions, he wants to get rid of a ton of shit, including healthcare for those parents who just had kids. I for one use the healthcare and it would be bullshit if they took it away. He's now getting people to sign recalls for the senators to get back into wisconsin, or he'll start laying off. Wheres the fucking democracy in that??
edit: i did have my own insurance before my daughter was born, but my premium was 4k, wtf?
|
Just because unions aren't perfect doesn't mean they need to go. They just need to be reformed.
In the modern era, it's a bitch to ever have a legal fight with a mega company because they can afford to drag out your case and outspend you in court. Unions provide guidance and legal defense in these situations where a lone worker would otherwise could be fucked for no fault of his own.
|
On March 09 2011 07:21 Sephimos wrote:
The big issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere is Public unions. Public unions have only existed since 1960 or so, and were only created as a political ploy by Democrats. It has been incredibly successful. AFSCME, the biggest public union, spends tens of million of dollars in every election, and about 95% (seriously) of it goes to Democrats.
Walker and other Republican governors are not only morally right to go after Unions and their abuses in order to balance state budgets, but politically savvy, as elimination of public unions would be a major body blow to Democratic campaigns.
Im sorry, do you have links to support this or are you just making up stuff?
As someone who lives in Madison, this sounds like a ton of bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.leasticoulddo.com/comics/20071120.gif)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.leasticoulddo.com/comics/20071123.gif)
