Labor Union Myths By Bob Hubbard

[Makalakumu]

The odd thing here is that I agree with points on both sides. I understand the points that Bob is making and I agree that it isn't fair and that it reduces the amount of overall freedom in a society.

What I think we all need to understand is that United States Constitution provided all of the protection our society ever needed. When the Constitution was ignored and altered, this allowed a free for all power grab through insideous corruption. The people who came out on top are still on top now.

If I were to isolate the single most important way the Constitution protected the people of this nation, I'd have to say that it was in the creation of currency. The Constitution specifically states that Congress shall have the authority to coin all money and that every coin must be made from gold and silver. The Framers understood that the creation of currency was one of the most important powers a government had. The ability to create money is the ability to control all of society. The Bill of Rights, is an addendum to this clause, IMO. The Framers were trying to tell us what kind of society they wanted after securing government most sacred and important power.

In other words, fiat fractional money is unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve, a private cartel that is in charge of our nations money supply is unconstitutional. The act of giving private interests the ability to print fiat currency was the deathknell of freedom because there is NOTHING this private interest cannot buy because they control the printing of the money.

This and this alone allows the dangerous centralization of power into the hands of the few across the world. Not just in America.

Bob, Unions are a reaction to this, IMO. When the government claims a portion of your labor, taxes you through other various means, and then "taxes" you through inflation, the only way that regular people can cut a break for themselves is to mobilize. The only way the "average joe" can lookout for his standard of living on a mass scale is through a Union.

I realize this isn't a perfect system. The best system was what our Founding Fathers designed for us. Since that is compromised, what else do we do?

Who would have thought that Monetary Theory was the key measure protecting our freedom in this country. Maybe that's why its not taught in schools...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm against both, actually.
Socialism, and Communism to me, are not the way I think people should live. I'm against all these "socialist" programs, and think the government should stick to keeping the borders secure, and criminals locked up, and otherwise be non-existent.
My views on a lot of matters are very close to these: http://www.lp.org/platform

NY doesn't require you to be union member, unless you're going to work at a union shop. It's 100% union or non union. A Right-To-Work state allows a mix.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob, Unions are a reaction to this, IMO. When the government claims a portion of your labor, taxes you through other various means, and then "taxes" you through inflation, the only way that regular people can cut a break for themselves is to mobilize. The only way the "average joe" can lookout for his standard of living on a mass scale is through a Union.

I realize this isn't a perfect system. The best system was what our Founding Fathers designed for us. Since that is compromised, what else do we do?
.

You restore the Constitution. You do not fix a broken system by installing another flawed system.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty."

But American's would rather have false-warm-n-fuzzies than fight to regain what we should have had.

I don't disagree that unions have done some good, but just as we no longer wage war with sword and bow, their time too has passed.

 

[Tez3]

We have no written constitution, we have the rule of law and the supremacy of the Parliament. Our protection is within the laws, the unions here have fought hard and long for the workers protection under those laws. The unions fought for the right to vote, they campaigned for compensation for workers injured in industrial accidents caused by employers negligence, they campaigned for equal pay and much more. In fact just about every right workers have in this country was won for them by the unions.
They have fought hard since the beginning of the 19th century and whether people like it or not they have a lot to thank the unions for here.

And they are needed here more than ever as they are the people who fight to keep peoples rights and the laws that protect us!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

We have no written constitution, we have the rule of law and the supremacy of the Parliament. Our protection is within the laws, the unions here have fought hard and long for the workers protection under those laws. The unions fought for the right to vote, they campaigned for compensation for workers injured in industrial accidents caused by employers negligence, they campaigned for equal pay and much more. In fact just about every right workers have in this country was won for them by the unions.
They have fought hard since the beginning of the 19th century and whether people like it or not they have a lot to thank the unions for here.

And they are needed here more than ever as they are the people who fight to keep peoples rights and the laws that protect us!

That's one of the major differences between our two countries, the written constitution. At our founding, after winning independence, and after scrapping the first draft "articles of confederation", our current constitution was written claiming that we had rights not from the king or the government, but we just did, and it spelled out a couple of them, and laws were written to protect us from the government. At that same point in time, the rights of the English people were more privileges granted by King and Court. As your country evolved from an absolute powered king to your parliamentary system, you were required to fight for each privilege and right. I realize I'm over simplifying here, and a comparison between England and American evolution would be a great (though I expect oft heated) discussion. My point is simply, "We're Different".

The unions I've been a member of, were of little use to me, did nothing but steal 3 hours pay every week.
Some here, have had similar experiences.
Others, have found they get value from their membership, and I do not begrudge them that, not at all.
I think in some cases, unions were absolutely necessary, especially in the late 19th early 20th century. But I also think they should be optional, and held accountable to laws, not excepted from them.

 

[Brian King]

dungeonworks wrote

“To even imply that the Union is responsible for an unhappy or lazy person is a freaking JOKE”

As much as always blaming the employer for an employee’s being unhappy unsafe or any other un? A persons happiness and productivity is their own responsibility in my opinion. So I agree with the above quote. How people react to thier situations is on them.

“THEY WERE BROKE AND BUSTING THEIR BUTTS FOR PEANUTS!:”

Yup that is ‘normal’ unfortunately for a majority of people. It has nothing to do with union or non union employment, education or lack of education or the pay scales of their employment in my opinion. There are people who make very high wages working in prestigious organizations and yet are still broke and unhappily self medicating. There are others that have paid for homes and autos, saved for their retirement and put children through university and are able to do so while working ‘dead end low paying jobs’.

“I'm not saying Union people are perfect, without corruption in some instances, or that it's members are without victims or compromise, but my GOD their is such a misconception out there that we are lazy and do noting. I got news for evreryone...IT HAPPENS IN NON UNION JOBS TOO!!!”

I agree completely so there is no need to yell especially as nobody has said that only happens in union jobs. There are many misconceptions “out there” but there are also many examples of lazy and do nothings as well, both in the union and non union. Of course the non-union employee that is found being lazy in many cases is terminated from their employment or never advances to more responsible positions or higher pay scale, I have seen it done. I am not a member of a union, perhaps one of you that is can tell me what consequences there are for an employee that does just enough to barely get by. Do they get fired? Does their pay suffer? Can they advance based on length of employment or membership rather than based on productivity and performance?

“If you truly enjoy worrying about your job every minute of every day or that you can get strength from it or that GOD will get you a new job, then good on you.”

I must not have been clear so I will try to explain once more. I have not had to worry about my job for very many years, decades in fact. There have been trying times in those years but my realizing that job security is an illusion has allowed me to accept whatever might happen or does indeed happen and to not ‘worry’ about it. I work not as a wage slave even as I collect wages but rather I work as a means of improving myself and improving my situation in life and to be a service to my community.

“I like the "illusion" of job security the UAW has negotiated for me.”

That is great that you like your contract and it makes you happy! Hypothetically what if the company you serve fails and goes out of business or your union gets busted or the pension fund ends up being under funded or the local politics and business environments force the factory to change states or countries? Would you still have job security?

“It's a funny thing when people point fingers at speciffic people and apply thier impression/opinion of that single being an entire organization.

I am not sure if that is directed towards me or not? I never once commented on an entire organization good bad or indifferent. I apologize if it appeared so or if my writing was not clear enough so that a person could read some kind of personal attack on some organization that has their loyalty and devotion.

“One bad apple...”

Should be thrown away or utilized in a manner that makes effective use of it.

Tez3 wrote

“I don't know what employment laws you have but you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.”

Please point out where I did.

Warmest regards
Brian King

 

[Sukerkin]

I think in your last there, Brian, the meaning of what Tez said was not aimed as a criticism but rather merely pointing out, as I have, that things are different elsewhere.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

I live in NY. I don't have a choice on unions. If there's one in a place, -everyone- is a member, even those who don't want to be. No Union, No Work.

Doesn't seem fair to me. To be forced to join a political organization to work and earn money to support my family.

Seems like something you'd find in one of those nations that are anti-democracy, you know, a Socialist state.

Funny how unions are a major plank in most socialist party platforms.

I'm not a socialist, don't support it at all. Why would I support a socialist institution?

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't trust the Teamsters to lead the revolution against Big Government. I'd follow Bill Gates before I followed them.

I prefer to keep my right to contract, my right to set my own rate, etc, to myself, rather than be forced to give them over to a third party who may not follow my wishes or intents, as a condition for work.

Bob, i know you say you don't have a choice.
You have the choice to move.
Not all unions are political organizations....but doesn't it make sense to support the politics that protect its members?

You make it sound as if Teamsters and union members aren't smart enough to do anything of value. Plans of action are voted on by the membership, but in a lot of unions, you have to put in some time in order to get a vote. A lot of folks join and quit unions without ever really knowing their benefits and then have all of these notions that unions are terrible.
Because of my union, I will in retirement enjoy financial security and freedom....in addition to my own savings, I will probably make more retired than I do now.

You said there are both union and non-union jobs available where you live. Go after the non-union jobs......start your own company.

You have to remember, a lot of the union folks out there are very pro-union and wouldn't consider hiring non-union companies.....but on the other side of the coin there are owners of union companies that do terrible things like hire non-union labour and pay them half the going union rate to do the same work the union guys are.

I'm sorry you've had a bad union experience.....but I like the fact that I have a voice in my industry, that there are standards being set and we are recognized as experts in our field because of our union training.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I used my choices years ago. Feb 09 will mark SilverStar's 8th year of incorporation, and my 4th year as a professional photographer...I'm also planning on moving to a Right-to-Work state next year and leaving the Peoples Socialist State of New Tax ASAP.

When I was a member, you didn't get jack until 3 months in, other than dues deductions. No protection, no help, nada. Seems if I'm forced to pay for membership in a group, I should have the benefits of that from the time cash first flows.

 

[Brian King]

Sukerkin wrote:

“I think in your last there, Brian, the meaning of what Tez said was not aimed as a criticism but rather merely pointing out, as I have, that things are different elsewhere.”

Really? I had thought with her posting the quote from one of my posts and replying to that quote by including “I don't know what employment laws you have but you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush “ that the you she was referring to was indeed me and that somehow I had tarred just everyone with a tar brush. I guess I must have misread or misunderstood what she wrote. No offense meant. Thanks for the clarification Sukerkin

I think I will bow out of this thread and this discussion. To easy for misunderstandings I reckon.

Good luck
Regards
Brian King

 

[Sukerkin]

One of those horribly fine distinctions of meaning between our 'versions' of English, my friend :tup:. She wasn't having a dig at you, tho' the quote to start with was to highlight the concept she was 'answering'. There was a switch from 'personal response' to 'general comment on topic' in the last sentence.

It's one of those things that I, as an Englishman, sometimes find trips me up on English language forums. I can say something in a face-to-face chat that a countryman would instinctively interpret as being a general point raised on the conversation, to carry it forward or clarify, rather than a personaly directed riposte. On-line, with our cousins across the sea, I sometimes have to backpedal and explain I meant nothing personal or argumentative but just wanted to carry a point onwards with an expressed caveat.

Who ever said discussion/diplomacy was easy when the language was 'common' :lol:?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

I used my choices years ago. Feb 09 will mark SilverStar's 8th year of incorporation, and my 4th year as a professional photographer...I'm also planning on moving to a Right-to-Work state next year and leaving the Peoples Socialist State of New Tax ASAP.

When I was a member, you didn't get jack until 3 months in, other than dues deductions. No protection, no help, nada. Seems if I'm forced to pay for membership in a group, I should have the benefits of that from the time cash first flows.

I understand where you are coming from, Bob.
When I first joined the union I was on a 1 year probation.....which meant at any time i could be let go from a job without reason and kicked out of the union membership for violation of it's rules.

I thought that was a load of BS (just for the record, I worked in the same industry for 10 years before joining this union and I come from a family with a union background so i was constantly referred to as a scab), I had just paid a $666 initiation fee to join a union and pay dues to it that i would not see any benefits from for an entire year. Up until I joined the union.....I was a vocal union-hater. I saw it exactly as you do...infringing on my right to make my own contract for services blah blah blah.

I realised later that they do this to weed out the hackers.....there are a lot of folks that used to join.....work for a few months and discover that the job was too demanding and quit. Without getting into a bunch of numbers, it costs a lot of money to train apprentices only to have them drop out before they are finished.

As the non-union work died out, I decided to sign up.

Here is a sample of what I get because I did......free lifetime training.
Complete Rx coverage for glasses, 90% coverage for all drugs and dental for my entire family, a 36 hour work week, guaranteed raises every year, representation if and when I need it, and a very nice pension when I retire.

Can I work non-union in the same field?
Sure I can.......I would go back to making half of what I do now....no pension and no benefits.

For me it's a no brainer......had I chosen to continue on my path of holistic healthcare, I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable as I am now (although I still treat people with shiatsu because I really believe it is the best hands-on therapy there is).

If unions were to magically be abolished tomorrow.....the face of north america would change drastically in our lifetime.....and I believe not for the better.

 

[Tez3]

Thank you Sukerkin!

I think union fees are also somethng different here, I was asking around where I work ( I support unions but because of my job am not allowed to join one, we have a federation instead) and the fee is usually dependant on how much you earn but the average as I said before is £7 a month and for most unions the benefits start immediately, a month is the longest you'd have to wait which is when your fee comes out of your pay. It doesn't cover medical stuff or anything like that, doesn't need to. Most have a small death benefit for members though. There's no probation in any of them.
What you get for your money is representation at any dicisplinary proceedings you may have, someone to negociate pay and conditions of service, welfare advice, education opportunities, free wills (here that's worth about £100) if you need to you have the legal backing of the unions to go to industrial tribunals and they will fight your case with employers and courts. Unions here are vey much run by the members, there are conferences yearly where the unions policies are decided by the members, beforehand there are votes by the members on everything and the union reps take these votes to conference, they aren't allowed to vote the way they want to they have to vote the way they have been instructed by their members. Union rules and policies have been changed very often by the votes of the majority of members. Before a strike there has to be a vote, there's votes on whether to accept pay rises etc. it may seem it takes a long time and is long winded but the members have their say and make their decisions. It's democracy at work. Perhaps the last bastion of democracy.

 

[Makalakumu]

You restore the Constitution.

I don't see that happening. There are too many vested and powerful interests that would lose everything if this were to happen. Nothing short of an armed insurrection followed by the "French Revolution Solution" would bring back the original state of our government.

There is a glimmer of hope, which is nothing but a fools dream of armegeddon. Suppose the financial system did fall and the bailouts failed and the value of the USD dropped to zero. People would be pissed off, hungry, and moving. There'd be tanks on the streets and the huge monster military that we foolishly built would be used against us, but there is a chance that if enough people know the truth about inflation, debt fractional fiat money, the federal reserve, and commodity money, there is a chance that the people could bring that back.

Bob, you need to understand that all of the people who make money by producing money would be wiped out if the Constitution were followed to the letter. These are the people who hold all of the levers of power in our government. These are the people who own almost every major avenue of communication in the country. These are the investors that own large portions of the real companies that produce real things in this country. A return to the letter of the Constitution means that all of their "wealth" dissipates.

The people are going to have to be motivated enough to pull the lever and drop the blade.

In the meantime, Unions serve as a bulwark against corporate tyranny. They provide an avenue for people to mobilize enmasse. They give people a voice in an environment where they normally wouldn't have one. IMO, without unions you will see the wholesale destruction of freedom and working conditions in this country. It's what the oligarchy wants anyways. And they are doing everything they can to destroy the unions. Look at immigration. The so-called "guest workers" are nothing more then second class people that can be employed at slave wages and worked in the kind horrible conditions that make most American livid. If you don't believe me, just take a look at how undocumented workers are treated in this country. Here's another book for you, "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser. This one, along side Fast Food Nation will give you the real story behind illegal immigrant workers. Corporations are importing third world working conditions to the first world...and now they want to make that legal.

It's ironic that this issue has so much Left cover because this is a direct attack on organized labor. Only a political system compromised by corruption could conceive of trickery this bold.

Bob, in my opinion, Unions are needed more then ever. Unions are one of the only forms of mass organization we have left. If we have any chance of fighting the corporate elite, if we have any chance of restoring the consititution and becoming the republic we once were, if we have any chance of maintaining our freedoms at all, its through the type of organization that Unions provide.

Unless you can think of a better organization that will mobilize people, I think you are going to come to the conclusion that Unions are pretty much all we got. It's not the best solution, but its a weapon nonetheless.

 

[MBuzzy]

Unfortunately, I am seeing that a discussion of unions is colored by all personal experiences, which goes to show that EVERY union is different. There does seem to be a big distinction between how they work in the UK and in the US, but if you are in a Union and had a good experience, you will be pro-union. If you are either in or not in a union and have had a bad experience, you will be anti-union.

Some unions still work and are still doing good things. Some unions have grown so corrupt that they are no longer of use and are now detrimental.

Personally, I've had very bad experiences with 3 separate unions. I also see what it is doing to the industry that I work in (construction) and am very unhappy with how things are going.

My last reason for my opinion is that I'm now in management roles. I've been on the worker level and dealt with unions there (bad experiences though) and now I am on the other side and perhaps I have a different perspective.

Obviously everyone wants to make as much as they possibly can for their job and no one will EVER admit it when they are making more than they "should." For example...my personal opinion is that a construction worker who places concrete should not make more than the engineer who designed the building - but the engineer has no union to inflate rates, so he's stuck. This rate inflation was needed, but it has never stopped. When the use was no longer there, the unions failed to back down, they continued demanding more and more money and more and more benefits.

I'm all in favor of job security, but there is a fine line. NO ONE wants to lose their job and EVERYONE wants to have job security, but not everyone DESERVES those things. There are far too many people who get their job security from the union and then SHUT DOWN and do only the minimum necessary....although even if they don't, you still can't fire them....

I just think that there is way too much objective thinking that must be done to ever get anywhere in a Union discussion. Too much of "putting yourself in someone else's shoes," and it is far too hard to see things from the other side.

 

[Tez3]

I have to say I don't understand why being in a union in the States means you can't lose your job.
Here you can easily lose your job if you don't fulfil the terms of your contract. Of course if the employer doesn't fulfil his part you can take him to a tribunal but there's no job security just because you belong to a union. Redundancies still happen, what the union can do is make sure you get the right amount of redundancy payments but it can't stop it happening. If you aren't pulling your weight or doing the job properly you'll be brought up on disciplinary proceedings which can mean you end up sacked, there the union makes sure you are defended corrrectly and procedures are properly followed but if you're guilty and you're sacked that's it.

 

[MBuzzy]

I have to say I don't understand why being in a union in the States means you can't lose your job.
Here you can easily lose your job if you don't fulfil the terms of your contract. Of course if the employer doesn't fulfil his part you can take him to a tribunal but there's no job security just because you belong to a union. Redundancies still happen, what the union can do is make sure you get the right amount of redundancy payments but it can't stop it happening. If you aren't pulling your weight or doing the job properly you'll be brought up on disciplinary proceedings which can mean you end up sacked, there the union makes sure you are defended corrrectly and procedures are properly followed but if you're guilty and you're sacked that's it.

The unions that I have dealt with have used their power to strike and their collective negotiation power to increase the difficulty with which employers may fire employees rather than increasing actual job security. Basically they have made it almost impossible to fire a negligent or sub-standard worker in some industries. In one union that I dealt with, the actual firing process took 6 months and you needed at least one year of paperwork documentation and no employee could be fired for a single incident unless it was criminal.

 

[Tez3]

The unions that I have dealt with have used their power to strike and their collective negotiation power to increase the difficulty with which employers may fire employees rather than increasing actual job security. Basically they have made it almost impossible to fire a negligent or sub-standard worker in some industries. In one union that I dealt with, the actual firing process took 6 months and you needed at least one year of paperwork documentation and no employee could be fired for a single incident unless it was criminal.

Despite the British reputation for striking it's actually quite difficult to strike these days. The days of the unions threatening to take people out are long gone, now as I said it has to be taken to the ballot and very few will go on strike, lose pay and with it some pension just because someones been sacked. It has meant though that the threat of a strike is now something meaningful that employers take notice of so when negociating pay etc they are more liable to come to agreement.
if someone breaks their contract there's little unions can do, if however someone is being sacked because of their colour, race, religion, sex or wrongly they can help take that person through an industrial tribunal and will more often than not win. This means the employer pays out a lot of compensation, employers now are careful to stick to the law. The person may or may not get their job back, it's not guarenteed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob, in my opinion, Unions are needed more then ever. Unions are one of the only forms of mass organization we have left. If we have any chance of fighting the corporate elite, if we have any chance of restoring the consititution and becoming the republic we once were, if we have any chance of maintaining our freedoms at all, its through the type of organization that Unions provide.

Unless you can think of a better organization that will mobilize people, I think you are going to come to the conclusion that Unions are pretty much all we got. It's not the best solution, but its a weapon nonetheless.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that following Lenin and Marx is the way to restore Jefferson and Madison. I do respect your position and thank you for it.

I see Unions as the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted, and while I will admit they have done some good, I can also argue that even the Nazi's and Stalin did some small good. But just because they did some good, doesn't make them right.

"A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . ." -- Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address​

Roughly eight million members of union households voted for John McCain in the November presidential elections, but were at the same time forced to bankroll Barack Obama's campaign with union dues money extracted out of their own or a family member's paycheck. This disturbing news underscores the importance of abolishing all forced union dues.

Federal law grants union officials extraordinary power over individual workers. Except in the 22 Right to Work states, federal law authorizes Big Labor to get workers fired for refusal to fork over forced union dues or fees.

http://www.nrtwc.org/nl/nl200812p5.pdf

In a November 24 report distributed by CNN, CareerBuilder staffer Rachel Zupek observed that, while low unemployment rates "seem harder to come by in today's economy," in the second half of 2008 there are still a number of cities with "low unemployment rates and sizeable job growth." And these cities are overwhelmingly located in the 22 states that now have laws on the books protecting employees' Right to Work without being fired for refusal to join or pay dues to an unwanted union.

Eight of the Nine Cities With Fewest Jobless Located In Right to Work States

Of the nine cities with the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S., eight are located in Right to Work states.

The fact that Right to Work states typically have excellent job and business climates is "no coincidence," added Mr. Mix.

"In non-Right to Work states, union officials wield the government-granted power to get workers fired for refusal to pay union dues or fees," he explained.

"Union campaign operatives use a large chunk of the forced dues collected under this system to elect politicians who are beholden to Big Labor's agenda.

"And this is an agenda of higher taxes and straitjacket regulations that can drive energy and real-estate costs sky high.

http://www.nrtwc.org/nl/nl200812p4.pdf

For More:
http://www.nrtwc.org/about/theproblem.php

See also:
[SIZE=+1]Labor Union’s Institutional Narcissism - My visit with a big city union local president[/SIZE]
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2099911/posts

In August by chance, I met the president of a large labor union of a major city who was on vacation where I live. After finding out he was the president of a union I steered the conversation to politics and the upcoming election, the conversation was alarming yet enlightening.
I will not mention the union, the city, nor the union presidents name because I did not tell him I was a blogger and he would not have been forthcoming had I told him. He was a nice man and I wouldn’t want to get him into hot water for a casual conversation. It would be my assumption that to become president of a union local you have to be smart and analytical, using that as a baseline I questioned:

Me: Considering these times of jobs moving overseas aren’t you concerned every new wage and benefit demand might be the straw that breaks the camels back forcing your industry to ship production overseas.

Union President: Yes but it is my job to get all I can for my members.

Me: We are in a world economy and the demands unions in America are making on U.S. corporations make them uncompetitive. Does that concern you?

Union President: Yes but it is still my job to get all I can for my members.

Me: Democrats don’t want to drill for oil yet industry is reliant upon it, doesn’t this worry you since union jobs depend upon industry being healthy.

Union President: Yes, this is troubling.

Me: I realize that Democrats are friendlier to the unions than Republicans but Republican tax policies are better for commerce and industry, if industry is crippled unemployment is sure to follow, so isn’t it risky for unions to back Barack Obama considering his proposed punitive taxes on Industry in this shaky economy?

Union President: Obama says many things but I hope that he can’t achieve them.

Me; So, as union president you put union first and the America’s economy second.

Union President: Yes.

This conversation although alarming reinforced something I have suspected for a long time; labor union’s institutional narcissism puts union self-interest ahead of country. A lifelong friend of mine is in a law enforcement union, and he votes union before country also. The same blue collar union members who proudly will send their sons into battle to protect our freedoms will go into a voting booth and vote their self-interest over that of their country’s and this confounded conundrum confuses me.

 

[MBuzzy]

if someone breaks their contract there's little unions can do, if however someone is being sacked because of their colour, race, religion, sex or wrongly they can help take that person through an industrial tribunal and will more often than not win. This means the employer pays out a lot of compensation, employers now are careful to stick to the law. The person may or may not get their job back, it's not guarenteed.

Part of my opinion is that we have several federal laws that protect employees from discrimination, so I guess I don't see how our unions are supposed to help in that respect....there are plenty of other constructs in place to protect for that.