Unions: Where did the U.S.A. go wrong?

[jabarto]

And WalMart, unlike the unionized auto makers, is not in danger of bankruptcy. Which means the employees there aren't getting laid off like at the auto plants.



That's why we have laws. And people able to protect themselves.

Unions are, in the US, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They fought for laws stopping mistreatment and exploitation and they got them. And now what?

It seems the big unions exist only to gouge more out of the business and expand membership. There's a very good reason they're shrinking in the private sector; people don't want to join them.

Unions aren't being judged worthless by some evil vast right wing conspiracy, but by the workers of the United States.

CR

Why do you think it is that people don't want to join unions?

[Beskar]

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy. In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.

[Xiahou]

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy. In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.

And if you're unlucky enough (as I am) to work at a union shop in a state without right to work laws, you can be fired for not joining a union. I guess that's alot better though.....

[Crazed Rabbit]

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy.

Any proof of this? Thought not.

In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.

Oh really? So that's why the minimum wage was raised recently.

Here's something else socialists and other economic illiterates don't seem to understand;
Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.

Good grief, it's like you base how ideological opponents act on nightmarish strawman arguments.

Why do you think it is that people don't want to join unions?

Maybe they want to be promoted based on merit, and not have incompetent employees who've been there longer be promoted first. Maybe they don't want to be forced to donate to the political causes the union favors. Maybe they don't want incompetent and lazy employees to be protected by the union, which means they have to work harder to make up for it.

Oh, and from the other thread; what are those 'conservative anti-union laws' passed that caused unions to decrease?

CR

[Ice]

Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.


CR

Yes...

This is why I'm probably going to go with the accounting firm that offers a good/work life balance, but doesn't abuse you like the large heavy hitters. So true

[jabarto]

Here's something else socialists and other economic illiterates don't seem to understand;
Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.

This is so astonishingly naive it blows my mind. Corporations have killed to keep people from unionizing, for God's sake.

[Beskar]

Any proof of this? Thought not.

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/antiworker.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/20...ord16feb04.htm
http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archive..._unionization/

Then there is first hand experience from working at Walmart, where they even try to con people into using their own special 'lawfirm' to take up law suits against them (lol?) opposed to real representation from a Union, and other measures. Then there are experiences from others, including Americans which have relayed stories of this happening to them, and the fact is it pretty much 'public knowledge' says a lot.

[jabarto]

Oh, and CR? Remember when I asked you about your economics background?

I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.

I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.

Mind you this says nothing of the third world, where things like this still happen on a regular basis. Look up what happened to Coca-Cola employess in Colombia when they tried to unionize; the only reason that doesn't happen here is because of the unions you want to dismantle.

[PanzerJaeger]

The idea that the United States is somehow singularly affected by union issues is a bit off. South Korea, France, and many other developed countries have far more militant unions than those in America. It was big news in South Korea when the major auto manufacturers managed to secure a deal with the unions that gave them a year (2010) with no strikes. 2011 is almost guaranteed to revert to the norm of highly disruptive strikes.

Japan and Germany have unusually cooperative relationships between management, unions, and government when it comes to manufacturing and export policy. I believe it is mostly due to a higher tendency towards collectivism in their respective cultures versus the United States.

[Xiahou]

Oh, and CR? Remember when I asked you about your economics background?

I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.

I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.

Mind you this says nothing of the third world, where things like this still happen on a regular basis. Look up what happened to Coca-Cola employess in Colombia when they tried to unionize; the only reason that doesn't happen here is because of the unions you want to dismantle.

The social, demographic, and regulatory structure of the US is worlds apart today than it was 100yrs ago. If the only difference you see is unions, then I'd be more worried about your own grasp on history.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We should promote unions, give women the right to vote, and end segregation. That's my belief.

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/antiworker.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/20...ord16feb04.htm
http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archive..._unionization/

Then there is first hand experience from working at Walmart, where they even try to con people into using their own special 'lawfirm' to take up law suits against them (lol?) opposed to real representation from a Union, and other measures. Then there are experiences from others, including Americans which have relayed stories of this happening to them, and the fact is it pretty much 'public knowledge' says a lot.

First hand experience? I didn't read anything there.

You said;

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy.

and did not provide any examples of that. The links showed only that WalMart closed one store after 51% of employees signed union cards - not even 51% of employees actually voting for a union - and ending a department after one place in Texas unionized. That's not being fired - that's the jobs not existing anymore. Walmart didn't hire anyone to take the place of the fired employees.

Nor did you provide one iota of evidence indicating any other corporation in the US did anything like what you allege.

removed; edited by Cleggy in original Thought not.

Have you been able to provide any evidence of what you claim? Do you have any real idea of the union situation in the US? Or do you just get neat little talking points and links from your favorite socialist blogs, then run and parrot them without any comprehension or experience in what you're talking about? Have you ever been able to competently respond to my arguments? Or do you just ignore the facts that invalidate your farcical arguments?

I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.

You have no grasp of the debate.

Did I say business did not act cruelly 100 years ago?

This is so astonishingly naive it blows my mind. Corporations have killed to keep people from unionizing, for God's sake.

Do you think whatever a company does is good business? Companies are made of people, and can be just as stupid as them. Just because a company has done something DOES NOT MEAN IT'S SMART.

Maybe this is the socialists problem. They see a company be immoral, and they assume that what they do is more profitable, so they blame the evils of capitalism for incentivizing companies to do it instead of the human stupidity of the companies.

I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.

I never said anything that contradicts this. Perhaps you should understand what I'm saying. Yes, companies were cruel, in terms of conditions, wages, and responses to strikes. THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD BUSINESS.

Look at how Ford began paying $5 a day to employees, an unheard-of high wage at the time, and became more profitable.

And if you want to talk about what companies did 100 years ago, you should remember that unions aren't needed now for the reasons they were then.

CR

[Ironside]

I never said anything that contradicts this. Perhaps you should understand what I'm saying. Yes, companies were cruel, in terms of conditions, wages, and responses to strikes. THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD BUSINESS.

Look at how Ford began paying $5 a day to employees, an unheard-of high wage at the time, and became more profitable.

And if you want to talk about what companies did 100 years ago, you should remember that unions aren't needed now for the reasons they were then.

CR

Could you please define "good business"? Is that goal the same as what is driven through the stockmarket? Or a CEO employed for a few years while making a bonus on profitability? How are companies run today compared to what you consider good business?

As for Fordism itself, the top value for the median US household income was reached 1999. You sure it's still working properly?

It always perturbs me when the ones saying Fordism is the solution are celebrating reduced salary/working conditions. Yes I can understand the difference between one company and the whole market, but at some points, these two matters meet and yet it's ignored. See the salary slashing due to the recession.

Might not be entirely on topic, but these are issues needed to be handled with.

[Husar]

If you abolish workers' interest groups, then you should also abolish employers' interest groups, nature interest groups, gun interest groups, military interest groups, muslim interest groups, christian interest groups, jewish interest groups and any other lobby group there is, since they all work towards their own goals, every single one of them. And they all try to influence the government and get things done their way. I wouldn't be surprised if they have mob ties in many of them either, isn't the italian mafia kinda catholic anyway?
The problem is if you abolish the worker unions but not the labour laws, the employer unions will have more power to convince the government to abolish those labour laws in the long run, or at least erode them, so either you keep all your interest groups or none.

[Beskar]

If you abolish workers' interest groups, then you should also abolish employers' interest groups, nature interest groups, gun interest groups, military interest groups, muslim interest groups, christian interest groups, jewish interest groups and any other lobby group there is, since they all work towards their own goals, every single one of them. And they all try to influence the government and get things done their way. I wouldn't be surprised if they have mob ties in many of them either, isn't the italian mafia kinda catholic anyway?
The problem is if you abolish the worker unions but not the labour laws, the employer unions will have more power to convince the government to abolish those labour laws in the long run, or at least erode them, so either you keep all your interest groups or none.

Why do you think America basically abolished unions? The Corporations run the government and didn't like it. It meant they had to possible pay people what they were worth.