Like I said before, some people need to learn the hard way.
Perhaps you will lose your job, or get a salary or benefit cut, and wish you had acted sooner. I hope not, but it could happen.
Actually I was laid off recently. But then, so were a lot of union people in other departments.
Oh well. A union might have been able to avoid even that. It could have negotiated for pay cuts for all workers in exchange for not laying any off, for instance, if the situation allowed for it. Or at least negotiated for your right to be the first to be hired if they start hiring again. It might have negotiated better severance pay than you got too.
(And if you lost your job to foreign competition, it sure would have been nice if unions could raise the pay of those workers rather than letting the market lower pay for all, reducing the incentive to drop U.S. workers for lower-paid foreign ones in a race to the bottom for wages.)
I appreciate your responses and do agree that unions are good in some situations. I just don’t agree that it is the best for everyone, including me. I’ve had this argument at home many times. My husband is of the opinion that all jobs should be union.
I wouldn’t say unions are good for all jobs either. But they make sense for many of them. And more importantly, as the OP shows, the overall labor movement has made all jobs better, even for people who have never had a union job. We can all support the labor movement even if we don’t have a union to join. And we can suffer if unions suffer, even if we’re not in one.
I have not been able to find a study that breaks down productivity and compensation growth by categories like this, they all seem to use either mean or median figures.
Thanks for trying.
This might be it, but I haven’t looked closely yet:
It covers earnings, and also health insurance coverage, but doesn’t correlate it to productivity, nor does it include benefits as part of real income.
The report described and linked to here is the closest thing I found, it attributes the trend in total compensation growth to both rising benefit costs and income inequality, but doesn’t break the trends down into income groups.
Do those same things also turn you off in regards to businesses? Because if you want to go that route, I can offer you many more examples of violence, including murder or unarmed women and children, committed by businesses than you can offer examples of violence committed by unions.
Hint: the SDMB has had this discussion previously.
Why would I possibly do something so stupid since I’m not a fan of big business?
I’m reminded of police officers whining about why police brutality cases get so much more attention than other types of crime.
"Waaahhhhhhh!!! The other guy does it!! Is not a compelling argument to like someone.
I’m not using it as argument for why you should like unions; I’m using it as an argument for why you should have the same attitude towards business that you have towards unions. Do you also have nothing to do with businesses, since some businesses have committed violence and engage in corruption?
ETA: I haven’t seen anywhere that you’ve ever denounced businesses or corporations because of violence and/or corruption, is all.
It’s a compelling argument for why violence is irrelevant to this conversation though.
Er… I do.
However this was a thread demanding people be grateful to things unions did a hundred years ago or in some cases didn’t do.
If this was a thread about the Pinkertons things would be different.
No, it isn’t. Unions are either good or bad (or some nuanced position in between), and how they treat the human beings who aren’t paying them is relevant to that argument.
How violent other organizations are, which aren’t unions, is not relevant, unless your claim is that the unions somehow prevent or mitigate corporate violence. Do they? If you’re making that argument, we need something beyond “corporations are sometimes violent, so are unions; therefore, even steven”.
Ah, so any action by any one union is cause to dislike all unions, but any action by any one business is cause to dislike only that one business?
Or did every union in the world do something to you that you found distasteful?
Had I made any of the statements you’re attributing to me you’d have a point, but I don’t, so all you’ve done is make an extremely foolish argument.
In fact, I don’t even hate all unions or think that on balance they’re worse than businesses.
Though it is interesting that you seem to feel(unless I misunderstand you) that unions should have an aderversarial approach to their employers.
The largest unions in the country are the public employees unions. Does that mean they should be seen as having an adversarial approach to their employers specifically the American taxpayers and should the American taxpayers feel the same towards them?
In that case, what you’ve written here previously didn’t convey your own experiences or attitudes very well. On reviewing the thread, I find that you clarified that you don’t dislike unions as much as your posts seem to indicate; I must have missed that or simply forgotten about it (it was several days ago and I’ve read literally thousands of posts since then, after all). So I appreciate that you acknowledged that you weren’t expressing yourself very well.
In which post did I indicate “that unions should have an aderversarial approach to their employers”?
Don’t worry about it. Besides it’s a hugely complicated topic as I’m sure you agree that too often people try and respond to with slogans you can fit on a bumper sticker.
As for the other, obviously I misinterpreted what you were suggesting.
Nope. Some unions are good, some are bad. Some have been bad in the past, and are good now. Etc.
The argument we are making is “judging the entire labor movement by the violence in its past is just as dumb as judging other organizations, such as businesses, by past violence.” Do you have a negative view of all corporations simply because some have been violent, and corrupt, in the past? If not, there you go. If so, at least you’re consistent in your fallacious thinking, but it’s still fallacious.