Labor Union Myths By Bob Hubbard

[Tez3]

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.

We have laws here but proving you've been sacked or not got promotion because of discrimination is very hard. The union helps you fight your case, otherwise it's you against the company who will have lawyers. You can have lawyers too if you have the thousands of pounds it will cost, the unions provide a solicitor who is an expert in employment law to represent you.
If you are being picked on at work it's good to have someone who's on your side.

 

[dungeonworks]

Speaking from my UAW experience...

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.

Have links to any union corruption? Anything recent and aside the Teamsters alleged mob ties in the 1960's (one bad apple...), as in the last 10 years. I feel unions are no more/less suceptable to corruption than anyone else...company managers, bankers, police officers, Karate Teachers, and that corruption is a human flaw. This "Union Corruption" thing is tossed around a lot without anything to back it up. It's like somebody saying Obama is not an American citizen or that he's Muslim without proof.

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.

Very valid points. I personally wouldn't argue against personal experiences and would not tout that anyone or any group is. I have issues with my own at times as with anything else in life.

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.

Job security is what it is all about. Why do these engineers you speak of not band together and demand fair pay for their work as the union construction guys have? Are they scared of the sacrifice and commitment to such a move and find it far easier to just accept what they are given?

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.

Who's to judge who gets what? Jesus? Congress?? The Flying Spaghetti Monster??? I thought everyone was equal in America and that their is not a caste system such as in ancient Japan. Also, it is a well perpetuated and unsubstantiated myth that union membership makes one immune to disciplinary layoff or separation. Maybe in the construction unions you have a few slugs, but man, that happens outside of the union as well!!! It is a fairy tale to believe lazy workers are only found in unions.

My bottom line is that if you do not like Unions, don't join them or hire them. There is an abundance of "right to work" states out there where you can conduct such business with workers of like mind. My only beef with them is when they complain about other people excercising very valid rights under the 1st ammendment of the US constitution, trying to bring us down rather than bringing them up just because it is easier!!!

 

[Makalakumu]

Bob, I completely understand all of the points that you are making. I've been part of a union for eight years and for the bulk of that time, the only thing the union did for me was nearly run me out of my job for working as hard as I could to educate children. Now I'm in a private school, working on the basis of my own merit. I know what kind of crap goes on in unions.

I just don't see another vehicle to organize enmasse right now. Maybe if we had some time, we could build a new kind of social structure that would link people together and organise, sort of like a federation dedicated to protect freedom in the US. Clinton made that sort of thing almost impossible, however. After Oklahoma City, the FBI labeled all of these kinds of groups as "militia" and they (FBI, ATF, and IRS) make it nearly impossible to associate due to constant harassment.

Bob, if the **** hits the fan, there will not be any other "easy" way to organize people without unions. It's a divided we fall scenario. As flawed as they are they do provide people with a tool to fight against tyranny. And we are going to need them. Hell, we were a hairsbredth away from martial law in October when the damned bailout was being rammed through.

Our government threatened the House of Representatives with martial law if they didn't vote for the bailout.

In my opinion, we don't have the luxury to debate these things. There are bigger fish to fry and we need to stand together right now.

 

[Phoenix44]

Are all employers such nice guys that you can just trust them to pay workers a living wage for reasonable hours, and to be fair?

I don't know...I guess I'm just not so trusting.

 

[Twin Fist]

no one needs a union, if you are not gettign paid what you want, i dont know, maybe you could GET ANOTHER JOB, or get better at your job so you get a raise.

no boss woulds rather train someone new than give out a small raise.

Unless it is for TRUELY unskilled labor where people are easily replaced

unions are useless,and worse, they are poison. Every union today is a tool for the friggin democrats, they all donate money to politicians, something they should NOT be able to do, IMO

I would like to see them outlawed.

If you need a union to protect your job, that tells me you more than likely suck at it. If you were any good, they would WANT to keep you.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob, I completely understand all of the points that you are making. I've been part of a union for eight years and for the bulk of that time, the only thing the union did for me was nearly run me out of my job for working as hard as I could to educate children. Now I'm in a private school, working on the basis of my own merit. I know what kind of crap goes on in unions.

I just don't see another vehicle to organize enmasse right now. Maybe if we had some time, we could build a new kind of social structure that would link people together and organise, sort of like a federation dedicated to protect freedom in the US. Clinton made that sort of thing almost impossible, however. After Oklahoma City, the FBI labeled all of these kinds of groups as "militia" and they (FBI, ATF, and IRS) make it nearly impossible to associate due to constant harassment.

Bob, if the **** hits the fan, there will not be any other "easy" way to organize people without unions. It's a divided we fall scenario. As flawed as they are they do provide people with a tool to fight against tyranny. And we are going to need them. Hell, we were a hairsbredth away from martial law in October when the damned bailout was being rammed through.

Our government threatened the House of Representatives with martial law if they didn't vote for the bailout.

In my opinion, we don't have the luxury to debate these things. There are bigger fish to fry and we need to stand together right now.

And, what good did the unions do in that political particular fight? I'd bet their lobbyists were working overtime to make sure Local 12 of the Arrow Fletchers Union got their special kick back.....

I know the government threatened martial law.
I know they have a division of experienced combat troops in the us, ready for urban warfare.
Try stopping an Abrams with a picket line.
I wouldn't trust the US Unions to lead me to victory, any more than the 7th Calvary were led at Bighorn by YellowHair.

Then again, maybe the UAW can invite them to play a few rounds of golf before cashing their own bailout checks (the ones they are asking for for the UAW) on the UAW's very own golf course?

The DC Examiner has more:

What do UAW executives and workers do to relax? They play golf at the union’s highly touted championship caliber Black Lake Golf Club, designed by Rees Jones. The UAW golf club is in secluded Onaway, MI, as part of the union’s Walter and Mary Reuther Family Education Center. Also part of Black Lake are a learning center, a practice facility with practice bunkers, chipping and putting greens, and a small, nine-hole par-three Little Course.
Golf Digest named Black Lake as one of top “upscale public courses.” And Michigan Golf described the course as a “classic” that includes “wide, well-groomed fairways [that] provide ample room for big hitters.” But some big hitters get special privileges at Black Lake. Tee times can be reserved up to two weeks in advance by UAW execs, compared to only three days for non-UAW duffers. Cost to play Black Lake is $95 per round.
Remember all the much-deserved bad press Detroit’s high-paid Big Three executives received last month when they flew in their corporate jets to beg Washington for a tax-paid bailout? Has anybody in Congress or the media bothered to ask UAW head Ron Gettelfinger about his union’s assets and perks like Black Lake Golf Club?​

Hey, after 4 coffee breaks, a paid lunch and a private masseuse, who doesn't need to play a couple of holes to unwind before starting the afternoon shift?

Tyrone Freeman, then head the largest Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate in California. Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times published new allegations against Freeman and his union. In 2004, Freeman's local launched what they called a "charity" to develop affordable housing for its members. The charity's board is mostly comprised of union officials, and the charity shares office space with the union.
The problem? In at least two years of operation, the "charity" failed to spend a single cent on its charitable mission.

The charity, launched by a scandal-ridden Los Angeles chapter of the Service Employees International Union, had total expenses of about $165,000 for 2005 and 2006, and all of the money went to consulting fees, insurance costs and other overhead, according to its Internal Revenue Service filings.
Charity watchdogs say that nonprofits should never have zero program expenses in two successive years and that well-performing charities direct at least 70% of their annual spending to their charitable purpose.
"Of the 5,000-plus charities we've looked at, I don't think we've ever seen one that didn't spend anything on its charitable programs," said Sandra Miniutti, vice president of Charity Navigator, an online rating service.
​

Running a union-affiliated charity that doesn't actually do any charity -- sounds a bit like the kind of job Rob Blagojevich was asking the SEIU to set up for him.

I wonder where that money went.....

By now, many of you have already heard about the pay-for-play scandal enveloping Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Unsurprisingly, Blago's corrupt antics are intimately connected to Big Labor. In return for a cushy appointment at the SEIU's Change to Win coalition, he apparently offered to name SEIU's hand-picked candidate to Barack Obama's newly-vacant senate seat (from the federal complaint .pdf):

Defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH and [his aide] JOHN HARRIS, together with others, attempted to use ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s authority to appoint a United States Senator for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, including, among other things, appointment as Secretary of Health & Human Services in the President-elect’s administration, and alternatively, a lucrative job which they schemed to induce a union to provide to ROD BLAGOJEVICH in exchange for appointing as senator an individual whom ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS believed to be favored by union officials and their associates.
​

--
​

HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.
​

The SEIU, of course, is denying any connection to the Blagojevich bribe,

Of course.

For those of you wondering, "Senate Candidate 1" is Valerie Jarrett, the SEIU's once-favored choice for the Illinois senate vacancy. As the excerpted segment shows, the feds also have an anonymous SEIU official agreeing on tape to convey Blago's proposed bribe to his superiors.
BREAKING NEWS: Notwithstanding SEIU denials, Politico reports a Democrat source has revealed the unnamed SEIU official is none other than President Andrew Stern himself.
UPDATE: NPR now reports that the SEIU official was actually Tom Balanoff, the union's Illinois chief.

How much is that Senator in the Window?

Since someone asked about the Teamsters.....

Foundation Attorneys Win Another NLRB Case: Union Bosses Retaliated Against Nonmember By Yanking Seniority

Tue, 09/30/2008 - 13:02 — Will Collins The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled in favor of a nonunion worker represented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, finding that Interstate Bakeries Corp. and local Teamsters union officials violated the law when they stripped a nonmember worker of his seniority during a merger.

http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/foundation-attorneys-win-favorable-09302008
Not one of the Union guys? Back of the line there buddy.

Big Labor Thugs Beat Dissenting Worker Unconscious... Yet Judge Notes an Improvement in Union Bosses' Behavior!

Sun, 08/24/2008 - 16:16 — Patrick Semmens Last week, the New York Times reported that Manhattan Federal District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. ordered a one-year continuation of governmental oversight of the New York City carpenters’ union, citing recent bribery convictions of several local bosses, extensive off-the-books work, and an incident where union militants beat up a worker outside a Catholic school until he was unconscious (because he had the gall to challenge the insiders in a union election).

I guess your rights are only important when you pays your dues.


All quotes taken from http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/union-corruption
Bias's noted, so check the included reference links for more.


Socialism and Communism aren't the answer to the US's problem. Socialism is merely the "gateway drug" to communism, and communism doesn't work.

Unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid to understand that the Government doesn't create jobs, it destroys them. FDR's "New Deal" which was rife with socialistic programs (and was very much to blame for strengthening the unions), delayed the recovery from the Great Depression. The Government Jobs took jobs from the private sector, the government housing was poorly maintained, and often rejected outright. The Education programs, a failure. Obama wants to be the new FDR. His choice of labor sec wants to see the unions even more powerful. I hope they fail.

Because otherwise, we'll have mandatory government jobs, doing what the government wants, when the government wants, where the government wants, living in the government housing (that has to be built to house all the people who lost their houses), eating the government food, and taking the government transportation (since gas will be $21/gallon and heavily taxed, along with restrictions on vehicle use).
And that, is not the America I want to live in, and it's not the one that Washington fought a revolution for, and that's not the America that I was promised as a kid.

You want to take back your government, you fight for it. You don't put in an equally bad one. Or a worse one. How in the name of Jefferson will supporting a system that demands obedience and violates several of my rights and supports the system I'm fighting against, going to restore the Constitution? Washington knew that, and he told Hamilton just how wrong he was when the later wanted to declare the former King Washington I.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Are all employers such nice guys that you can just trust them to pay workers a living wage for reasonable hours, and to be fair?

I don't know...I guess I'm just not so trusting.

The only Union rep I can say good things about was the steward when I worked at one grocery place waaay back. He's the one who drove my *** to the hospital after I ran a boxcutter through my thigh.

But, I can't say membership kept me working. Same guy admitted that if I was attacked by a customer, the store could fire me for fighting, even if I never lifted a hand.

Can you trust all employers? Nope. I wouldn't trust any of em, personally.
But where there is competition by employers for good employees, you can do pretty well without a union.

Friend of mine has a company car, training and cert testing, full medical, and even a company expense account. He's been there less that a year, and had all that (except the company credit card) from day 1. Non Union.
The union competitor you use your own car, medical is rather wimpy, and you pay for your own training and tools.

Wegmans is non union, and constantly on the Best Places to Work. (#3 in 2008)
Tops is union, and constantly at the low end of that list.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/full_list/index.html

How many of the top 100 are Union shops?

 

[Sukerkin]

I give up.

Not only do I give up with the sites software that just erased a very long post explaining my views on this topic because I accidently hit the left shoulder button on my mouse but I also give up of expecting any of what I consider common sense out of many of the American posters here on this subject.

I don't know what's up with you, truly, that you do not see what is skewed with your opinions. You'll get the future you ask for when there is no buffer between you and the owners of Capital and you do not have an extra-ordinary skill that cannot be sourced elsewhere.

Perhaps it's a difference in moral perception? I can't understand it any other way. As long as you as an individual are doing okay then **** everyone else? Surely that cannot be the outcome that is acceptable to the mass of the American public?

Enjoy the fruits of selfish elitism for as long as they serve you. But please, no tears when you are not riding the wave upwards at the cost of others but instead have to endure the pains that standing alone when you are not strong.

 

[Makalakumu]

Sukerkin - it ain't just us. I have friends and relatives in the UK who are looking at the same problems. Remember, the Bank of England is the template for Central Banks around the world. The BoE invented fractional fiat paper and imported that concept across the Empire.

We're all connected in this net.

 

[Sukerkin]

On that there is no disagreement, Mauna :tup:.

 

[MBuzzy]

Have links to any union corruption? Anything recent and aside the Teamsters alleged mob ties in the 1960's (one bad apple...), as in the last 10 years. I feel unions are no more/less suceptable to corruption than anyone else...company managers, bankers, police officers, Karate Teachers, and that corruption is a human flaw. This "Union Corruption" thing is tossed around a lot without anything to back it up. It's like somebody saying Obama is not an American citizen or that he's Muslim without proof.

I believe you may have taken my comment about corruption a bit too literally. I'm not talking about Watergate or the Teamsters...I'm talking about corruption in the pure definition of the term: "impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle; a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct, and/or an agency or influence that corrupts." I believe that Unions who take advantage of Employers and the Union members who abuse their union privileges are corrupt. And I agree, there is corruption everywhere. The things that happen in Unions can happen anywhere, but when organized, things can get worse.

Job security is what it is all about. Why do these engineers you speak of not band together and demand fair pay for their work as the union construction guys have? Are they scared of the sacrifice and commitment to such a move and find it far easier to just accept what they are given?

First of all, I would guess because Engineers are considered "white color" workers and normally not associated with unions. Engineers also tend to be in management positions. But I think that you are missing my point. I believe that the engineers are GETTING paid fairly! They have no need to form a union. They have on need to "band together" and "strike back" against the evil corporations.

This is what has REALLY soured me on Unions. EVERY union member that I have ever met has this horrible "us and them" mentality against ANY type of management. The ones that I have met all believe that anyone in any type of management role is an evil human being and lives for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the workers and taking away their jobs. This is what I mean when I say that no one will EVER be able to get beyond their own experiences.

How many people are big enough to think objectively about this? Those managers are trying to do their job just like everyone else and wish no one else any ill will. AGAIN, there are always exceptions and plenty of bad people who ARE in management....but it certainly isn't the vast majority that I've heard people talk about.

Do you believe that a man who places concrete or ties rebar and being paid $114,000/year is being paid fairly? Personally, I think that this wage is VASTLY over inflated...especially for a worker who is only allowed and will only do one particular type of work? Why do you think that the construction industry is being taken over by immigrants? It saddens me greatly that thousands upon thousands of Americans are losing Construction jobs because the construction companies and contractors can no longer afford to pay them. The Union shops are closing down and the non-union shops are THRIVING. Companies just can't continue paying $50.00 an hour for someone who does a single job....or $2000.00 a day for someone who sits in a Crane, whether it is used or not and sleeps or reads when not operating the crane. That operator can be replaced by immigrants who are paid FAR FAR less and will do anything that they are asked. I think you misunderstand....I don't hate the idea of Unions, I hate what they have done to the industry that I work in.

Who's to judge who gets what? Jesus? Congress?? The Flying Spaghetti Monster??? I thought everyone was equal in America and that their is not a caste system such as in ancient Japan. Also, it is a well perpetuated and unsubstantiated myth that union membership makes one immune to disciplinary layoff or separation. Maybe in the construction unions you have a few slugs, but man, that happens outside of the union as well!!! It is a fairy tale to believe lazy workers are only found in unions.

Again, no one EVER said that the only Lazy people in the world work in Unions. My personal problem is that in an attempt to give job security to the GOOD workers, the bad workers get a free ride. Non-Union....yes, you have to trust that the company for job security, which is a foreign concept it seems to any Union. Again, MY EXPERIENCE ONLY, but they seem to operate on created mistrust of the company in the workers.

My bottom line is that if you do not like Unions, don't join them or hire them. There is an abundance of "right to work" states out there where you can conduct such business with workers of like mind. My only beef with them is when they complain about other people excercising very valid rights under the 1st ammendment of the US constitution, trying to bring us down rather than bringing them up just because it is easier!!!

Again, I never have to worry about it. Being active duty military, we have no unions. Our Government civilians are largely unionized, which just means that I have to deal with the unions for the rest of my career and unfortunately, I am intimately familiar with their operations and processes.

I have absolutely no problem with a Union that is doing its job and functioning properly. A union that exists to unite the people and ensure fair work conditions, pay and benefit. My problem comes when they overstep that line and greed begins to be their motivation. Demaning pay far beyond the job description, benefits beyond what the company can afford, and anything that takes ONLY the workers into mind with no consideration for the well being of the company that employs them. I suppose I'm way off there....but I saw the Unions destroy my home town. When Bethlehem steel couldn't afford to pay the overinflated union wages and shut down their plants and pulled out, causing EVERYONE in the city to lose their jobs....my family members included.....where do you think the Union was? The union support left when the company did.

Like I said...my personal experiences and beliefs. I suppose it isn't the idea of a union that I have any problem with. I thikn that it is a great idea and for a long time, it is what kept America alive. I just dislike what it has become in SOME PLACES.

 

[MBuzzy]

I give up.

Not only do I give up with the sites software that just erased a very long post explaining my views on this topic because I accidently hit the left shoulder button on my mouse but I also give up of expecting any of what I consider common sense out of many of the American posters here on this subject.

I don't know what's up with you, truly, that you do not see what is skewed with your opinions. You'll get the future you ask for when there is no buffer between you and the owners of Capital and you do not have an extra-ordinary skill that cannot be sourced elsewhere.

Perhaps it's a difference in moral perception? I can't understand it any other way. As long as you as an individual are doing okay then **** everyone else? Surely that cannot be the outcome that is acceptable to the mass of the American public?

Enjoy the fruits of selfish elitism for as long as they serve you. But please, no tears when you are not riding the wave upwards at the cost of others but instead have to endure the pains that standing alone when you are not strong.

I dunno Mark, from what you Brits are saying...it really seems like there is just a fundamental difference in what the Unions are and do. It almost sounds like they are still functioning there how they were originally intended to here. Although I would be surprised if SOME of the unions didn't have some of the same problems. The kind of stuff that I've seen almost seem inevitable once they have reached their initial goal.

I mean really....you have this organization of workers with the power to influence the company who DEMAND fair pay, good work conditions, job security, and good benefits. But what do they do once those things have been attained?

Do they sit back and "watch" until they are needed again? Do they dissolve because they are no longer needed? Or do they stay around and continue demanding more? and more....and more and more.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, this I do concur with.

Further I must apologise for the edge of overt emotionality in my previous post.

It has nothing to do with the subject at hand and a lot to do with the fact that this evening I was right there at the scene of a nasty road traffic accident.
I guess I really shouldn't be posting at all as I'm likely to treat almost any topic as trivial or give free vent to things that I shouldn't - my apologies to all .

 

[zeeberex]

I would like to see them outlawed.

Howza about you shut the hell up?

 

[MBuzzy]

Aye, this I do concur with.

Further I must apologise for the edge of overt emotionality in my previous post.

It has nothing to do with the subject at hand and a lot to do with the fact that this evening I was right there when a young bloke got ploughed off his bike and killed in front of my eyes.

I guess I really shouldn't be posting at all as I'm likely to treat almost any topic as trivial or give free vent to things that I shouldn't - my apologies to all .

Its quite alright, completely understandable...I hope you're doing ok. This can be an emotional subject anyway! It is tied to a person's pay and livihood!

 

[MBuzzy]

We've done very well so far, so please continue to keep things civil. Non-attribution and such, everyone is entitled an opinion.

 

[MJS]

ADMIN NOTE

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Lets keep the discussion at a civil level without the personal shots and rude comments.

Mike Slosek
MT Asst. Admin

 

[Gordon Nore]

no one needs a union, if you are not gettign paid what you want, i dont know, maybe you could GET ANOTHER JOB, or get better at your job so you get a raise.

That's a fairly broad sweep of the brush, don't you think? True, not everyone wants a union. Many folks do well without. To say that nobody needs one is a vast generalization.

no boss woulds rather train someone new than give out a small raise.
Unless it is for TRUELY unskilled labor where people are easily replaced

I'm torn on this one. I know that there are jobs that people do in the short term that they don't expect to make their career. But that's very easy to say when you know you're just passing through. Is a worker in a lesser-skilled job less entitled to some sort of process to measure his contribution and compensate him.

unions are useless,and worse, they are poison. Every union today is a tool for the friggin democrats, they all donate money to politicians, something they should NOT be able to do, IMO

On that we would agree, providing your analysis includes also the vast donations made by corporate and other interests. What you're talking about is campaign financing in general, which is a dirty business.

I would like to see them outlawed.

What can I say?

If you need a union to protect your job, that tells me you more than likely suck at it. If you were any good, they would WANT to keep you.

That presupposes that unions protect all jobs -- they don't. If profits are down or if funding is cut, people get laid off. Last in; first out. I've been there, ten years ago. Five-and-a-half years teaching community college, the Provincial gov't took an axe to funding. Two-hundred-and-sixty academic and support staff jobs simply vanished.

But there was a process, and that's what's being conscientiously ignored by anti-union comments in this thread:

Unionized organizations work under a collective agreement, or a contract. That contract is not a union document; it's not a management document. Representatives of both groups sat down and worked out an agreement that is satisfactory to management and voted on by the membership. When that contract expires, and bargaining has progressed, my union can call for a strike vote. That is a legal activity. In my case, strikes have been rare. I've never actually walked the picket line as a teacher. I have had to "work to rule," which means workers in my category withhold a number of voluntary services.

I say again, this is all legal. Unfortunately, when you read about a strike or see it on television, certainly in North America, that legal process is quickly forgotten about. The fact that workers are fighting to save jobs, or to improve their lot goes out the window. What does get reported on is the inconvenience it brings to others. It doesn't matter if you're watching Fox or CNN, or some of the media outlets in my country. I you watch labour coverage, all the media have a funny way of making it sound like strikers broke the law.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Bob,

Your link to Daryl Hunter's blog is leaves me kind of flat:

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.
...

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.

First, he doesn't say whom he interviewed. By not naming the source which his entire article is based up, his story is (1) suspect and (2) immune to scrutiny or verification. It's not even journalism. I know the rules are different in the blogosphere, but this is not even reliable.

Also, where's the big surprise in the union guy saying he's going to get the best deal he can for workers -- that's his job? Just as it is the job of a business to maximize its profits. Were those mortgage lenders thinking about what was best for America? This is now twice in twenty years that the US government has stepped in to cough up billions in taxpayer dollars to circumvent the collapse of the banking system.

 

[Twin Fist]

no gordon, i do not think it is a broad brush.

IMO, no one NEEDS a union. People have the choice to work there, or not.

there is always another job

if the managment treats people bad, those people will leave. that business will go under

survival of the fittest.

works in nature, works in the work force.

the problem is that unions try to treat everything as if everyone is equal

that is a fantasy

some people suck, they should be able to fire them

some people rock, a company should be able to keep them, regardless of seniority

and i agree, I dont want unions OR business donating to politics.

I KNOW unions, my mother was FORCED to join one to get a job, she was FORCED to pay dues, FORCED to strike, FORCED to do 4 hours a day on the picket lines for so called "strike wages" that were less than 25% of her normal wage, FORCED to not go out and get another job, she was threatened that if she got another job while the union was on strike, bad things would happen to me, FORCED to put up with a man on her shift who wouldnt keep his hands to himself because he was a delegate

**** UNIONS