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

[jabarto]

I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.

1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.

Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Lemur]

Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

I don't see where I have made the argument that "truth is always in the middle." That would be a surprising thing for me to write or say, given that I don't believe it. Even more surprising to hear that from South Park, given how they've never made that argument, um, ever.

Rather, I understand how the need for unions arose, I understand the good unions did, and I have seen firsthand how messed-up they can be today. I can't go into too much detail, but I have done work for a manufacturer who has a strong union presence in-house. The union employees take an extremely adversarial attitude toward management, the company, and pretty much anybody who wanders by. To call their attitude "counterproductive" would be an epic understatement. Just go ahead and attempt to move a cable out of your way, and watch the guys freak out. You're gonna cost somebody his job if you touch that cable!

I've got a hazy outline of a theory, that the breakdown of unions is really a breakdown of management, that bad executives have allowed an us v. them attitude to fester in some industries, which led to a polarization between labor and management. But I haven't done deep reading or study on the subject, so I can't assert anything with confidence.

[jabarto]

I don't see where I have made the argument that "truth is always in the middle." That would be a surprising thing for me to write or say, given that I don't believe it. Even more surprising to hear that from South Park, given how they've never made that argument, um, ever.

Rather, I understand how the need for unions arose, I understand the good unions did, and I have seen firsthand how messed-up they can be today. I can't go into too much detail, but I have done work for a manufacturer who has a strong union presence in-house. The union employees take an extremely adversarial attitude toward management, the company, and pretty much anybody who wanders by. To call their attitude "counterproductive" would be an epic understatement. Just go ahead and attempt to move a cable out of your way, and watch the guys freak out. You're gonna cost somebody his job if you touch that cable!

I've got a hazy outline of a theory, that the breakdown of unions is really a breakdown of management, that bad executives have allowed an us v. them attitude to fester in some industries, which led to a polarization between labor and management. But I haven't done deep reading or study on the subject, so I can't assert anything with confidence.

ALright, I guess that was a little aggressive of me. I'm sorry.

My point still stands, though; by saying that "some unions are good, some are bad", you're ascribing to them this kind of moral ambiguity that simply doesn't exist. There are bad unions - the prison workers' union in CA comes to mind - but that's literally the only valid example of unions causing serious trouble that I've ever heard. The overwhelming mojaority are agents of good.

[drone]

Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?

[Lemur]

Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?

Dunno about Europe, but in Japan definitely. That said, the Yakuza have historically had ties to the extreme rightwing of Japanese politics, so the situation is a bit different from the U.S.A.

[Ronin]

Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?

worse...they have political party ties.
over here the biggest union blocks are basically used as "force multipliers" by the political parties.

[Ice]

I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.

1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.

Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

Newflash: It isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore.

My point still stands, though; by saying that "some unions are good, some are bad", you're ascribing to them this kind of moral ambiguity that simply doesn't exist. There are bad unions - the prison workers' union in CA comes to mind - but that's literally the only valid example of unions causing serious trouble that I've ever heard. The overwhelming mojaority are agents of good.

Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?

[Skullheadhq]

Newflash: It isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore.

So, if unions and labour laws would be abolished overnight won't employees radically cut salaries and decrease working condition and hire childen because it isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore?

[Ice]

So, if unions and labour laws would be abolished overnight won't employees radically cut salaries and decrease working condition and hire childen because it isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore?

Labor laws should not be abolished and no.

[Skullheadhq]

Labor laws should not be abolished and no.

Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary, this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.

NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.

[seireikhaan]

Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary, this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.

NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.

In other news, just over 12% of US employees are in unions. Linky. And, lo and behold, we have not turned into Columbia. Imo, unions are only necessary for highly dangerous professions, such as mining. Otherwise, it seems they're pretty obsolete, given such a vast majority choose not to participate in them.

[jabarto]

In other news, just over 12% of US employees are in unions. Linky. And, lo and behold, we have not turned into Columbia. Imo, unions are only necessary for highly dangerous professions, such as mining. Otherwise, it seems they're pretty obsolete, given such a vast majority choose not to participate in them.

You are aware that even suggesting that a work force be unioniized can be grounds for the company firing every last employee and shutting down the workpace, right? It's happened before with WalMart. So while there probably are people who don't want to unionize, that's realy a moot point compared to how hard it is to actually do so if you want to.

Also, remember that unions exist to protect their employees from unfair practices, which are hardlyexclusive to dangerous professions. Anyone can be exploited, and everyone needs protection from it.

[Ice]

Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary,

I would say companies are more ethical today simply because of public perception and outside pressure. You can't exactly work someone in dangerous conditions, without a break, and 6 days a week for minimal pay without getting bad publicity.

this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.

See my above comment. I disagree with third world sweat shops. This discussion isn't about that though.

NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.

Stop trying to be a smart***... you are failing miserably. Did I ever say we needed less labor laws? In fact, these laws can act as very good subsitutes for most unions.

The auto industries did not fail because of unionized labor. They fell because they produced terrible cars that nobody wanted. But go ahead and keep blaming unions for bad management decisions.

Keep trying to simply the problem. Reread my post... here I'll post the important part for you.

Greed. It's as simple as that. To use the auto companies in Michigan as an example, the unions kept asking for more, and the car companies, not wanting to upset earnings in the short term, gave it to them.

Does this sound like I'm soley blaming the unions? BAD MANAGEMENT DECISIONS empowered the unions.

[jabarto]

Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?

The auto industries did not fail because of unionized labor. They fell because they produced terrible cars that nobody wanted. But go ahead and keep blaming unions for bad management decisions.

[Goofball]

I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.

1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.

Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

1. Because North American Unions operate more on the "protection racket" model than on the collective approach to a better deal.
2. It's just like your politics. No how matter how reasonable a policy may be, if it was proposed by the "other side" the opposition is required to say how crappy it is.
3. No and no.
4. Higher productivity; younger workers treated fairly out from under the thumb of seniority; merit-based reward; profit-sharing, etc...
5. They already have been. That's why unions have had to become so much more aggressive and unreasonable, making demands (in some cases) that any sane person can see will bankrupt the hand that feeds them and put them out of jobs.

You're absolutely right, jabarto. There is absolutely no "good" in unions.

[jabarto]

way to ignore 200 years of economic history there sport

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Somewhere betwixt the two of you is likely to be an accurate answer. Neither of your arguments is without merit.

[jabarto]

I don't even know what to say anymore. On one hand you have the people who will not desist from their holy crusade to veiw the truth as always being in the middle despite any and all evidence to the contrary. On the other, you have the people who, when confronted with fact that exploitation is still a real and serious problem, proclaim, "OH PSHAW THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION MILLION YEARS" despite the fact that it can, has, does, and will happen unless measures are taken to prevent it. This thread is like a melting pot for bad arguments.

[Lemur]

This thread is like a melting pot for bad arguments.

And mixed metaphors. But I have personally contributed to other melting pots of bad arguments, so I wouldn't want you to go away with the impression that it's exclusive to this thread. We can do bad arguments anywhere.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't even know what to say anymore. On one hand you have the people who will not desist from their holy crusade to veiw the truth as always being in the middle despite any and all evidence to the contrary. On the other, you have the people who, when confronted with fact that exploitation is still a real and serious problem, proclaim, "OH PSHAW THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION MILLION YEARS" despite the fact that it can, has, does, and will happen unless measures are taken to prevent it. This thread is like a melting pot for bad arguments.

Crusading for the middle? Pal, have you got the wrong idea about me.