Unions are about forming cartels that monopolise the supply of a required resource (in this case, labour). They are not a force in favour of the free market - why else would they have such hatred for “scabs”?
Conceptually, unions are a perfect and efficient mechanism of a free market. Practically, they are run by people and are as susceptable to corruption as the management they oppose. My gut feeling is that, by and large, it’s a wash. We see plenty of examples of management malpractice, and we see plenty of examples of corrupt unions, but we don’t hear about the millions of examples where these two groups work as intended - because that’s not news.
Cartels are an effect of a free market.
No blame. It is credit. Unions created the middle class that made America the buying power it was. It was companies that are destroying it. Unions brought us the 8 hour day, time and a half overtime, protection against dangerous working conditions, the end to child labor , vacations, sick days and health care and retirement . If you are dumb enough to believe those things will continue when unions are gone, you are dreaming.
And Saturdays and labor day and paid time off for sickness and vacation.
Are you unfamiliar with the amazing growth of the economy during the 19th century? I do not claim it was due to the lack of unions, but unions didn’t exist until the end of the period.
If it were obvious, you probably wouldn’t be making the arguments you have.
:rolleyes:
Bull. Bull and a half. This is such patent nonsense I cannot conceive of you can write this with a straight face.
Yeah, I really believe the UAW is nobly championing the cause of humanity. Yeah, I really believe the Teacher’s UNions care about Education. Oh, I suppose they do care. They probably accidentally dropped that priority down the drain. No, I know -they just forgot, right?
I don’t care about unions as long as the government is propping them up. What I do care is about are those people who believe unions are some kind of handout from God. They are a narrow interest group which seeks to monopolize labor. It is a rent-seeking enterprise, and nothing more. I don’t consider Bowing to have any moral component to its decision to open new plants in South Carolina. Neither do I consider the union to have any right to lean on the Democrats to get illegal
Frankly, if you think workers have either some duty to cut their throats for others, then your moral calculus is so different from mine as to have no way of communication. I don’t expect them to sacrifice for others, and I do not demand it, and I don’t pretend it. In fact, I really don’t believe you actually think that, not for a minute. Of course, we’re not permitted to call others liars here. So you’re not lying, just telling a completely fabricated non-truth.
Sometimes I have. What of it? It’s not a day with any meaning to me. I get what holidays I can bargain or earn for. It’s far better than not having a job in the first place.
Asa I said, I oppose corporations getting handouts and unions getting supports That way lies crony capitalism, slow economic growth, and political corruption.
Exactly. Unions seek to create monopolies on labor. Just as a corporation would really prefer to have the government lock out all competition - once that corporation makes it big - the UNion wants the govenment to give it favors and backing in exchange for lots of votes. The fact that this is against the public interest and possibly illegal is merely icing on the cake.
This is what so many lefists don’t understand: we’re not a team. I, as your coworker, am also your competitor for raises, promotions, and benefits. I don’t want your backing and I don’t want to pay dues to an organization I don’t care about. I don’t want your support, and I don’t need it. Somehow groceries still get bagged in states without a union.
More to the point, you fail completely to understand the transaction. The union gets to steal my money. I supposedly get some benefit for this. But when I have no choice about joining the union, I don’t actually get a vote. What, you think the union is just going to say, “No worries, you can just work without dues.” Hell, it’s set things up in such a manner so that it couldn’t if it wanted to!
It has been consistently demonstrated that teacher’s unions do not help education in any way. They do turn teaching into a hugely expensive and largely useless profession, protect bad teachers, and work in concert with bureaucracies to prevent any improvement. They talk about helping students; they accomplish nothing but raising costs and making schools worse.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by healthcare unions, so I won’t comment.
The only power a worker has against a company is the threat of a strike. I know how big some egos are on this board. Some believe they can not be replaced. But if you get killed in a traffic accident on the way home. the company will continue tomorrow. They do not need you.
The company knows that.
[quote=“smiling_bandit, post:26, topic:584219”]
Are you unfamiliar with the amazing growth of the economy during the 19th century? I do not claim it was due to the lack of unions, but unions didn’t exist until the end of the period.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, right. Child and slave labor! I forgot! Shucks! Pity wages, destitute conditions. Yeah, unions are useless. :rolleyes:
I just love the idea of my six year old in a coal mine, bringing in his due! Damn those unions. Damn them!
You’re an angry little internet pisser, aren’t ya? I was a union member, so it’s not like I’m just cracking open a pamphlet of talking points.
Really? Teachers don’t argue for smaller classrooms, more time planning, better teachers, better pay, appropriate security staff, SUPPLIES IN THE CLASSROOM?!
That’s what my union does. Too bad they’ve grown weaker over time as we’d probably be retaining teachers instead of losing them.
SEIU. Example: It’s a bad idea for nurses to have to work 36 hour shifts while lives are at stake.
If an employee fails to uphold its end of the contract or it retaliates against a union member for being a member, the company can be fined. Unions can file complaints.
I have mixed feeling on unions, they are needed at some times but I had to get out of a career int hem because they are very limiting to anyone with an ounce of drive.
Why should the slacker who shows up late and doesn’t put much work in get a raise with me just because we showed up at the same time?
As for Teachers, there is a very real need to ensure they are fairly compensated but the reality is that we have, adjusted for inflation, tippled the amount of money we spend on teachers per student over the past 40 years and yet scores have stayed basically the same that entire time.
The teacher unions like to say that they just need more money to make schools better but the reality is that there are social changes that need to be made to improve it.
So I agree with the poster, they have a right to ask for more money and probably deserve it but to claim it is going to improve the quality of education is false, they like everyone else want to improve their station in life.
Is there a point in that statement? Companies own the regulators and the courts. There is no equal playing field. Money is power.
You can get your ass fired and face high powered corporate lawyers . They can take you to court forever.
Not if assistant #1’s experience, skill and output is twice that of assistant #2.
I was with the CWA for three years and hated it. It was impossible for me to be recognized for my accomplishments. Unions inject into companies a thick, viscous layer of bureaucracy of the type that you only see in the most bloated governments. I’ve never worked with a lazier bunch of people in my life.
I’m not unionized now but I have all of those things.
You have those things because unions fought for them. They did not exist until unions won them. But in order to attract workers, non union places had to match the benefits. They had to create some sense of security and fairness. Otherwise everyone would have organized. Workers would have gone to a union shop.
Corporations knew they had to compete with union shops to get talented workers.
But as unions fade into history, benefits are shrinking. Corporations are cutting health care quality, increasing copays and cutting vacations and retirements. That is what the anti union movement is bringing you. i feel sad that you can not see it. But that is what is coming.
[quote=“rat_avatar, post:30, topic:584219”]
Workers are still subject to review and penalty. What does that have to do with anything? Union sectors are usually ones that go up on a scale based on education and experience and position.
Cite?
Since when is my 33k/year good pay for Denver, Colorado?
You want better teachers? Attract better candidates. Pay more. Plenty of people would love to teach and have real knowledge of their content areas, but can’t live off that salary and support families. May as well go into another sector.
Teachers average about five years in the bigger cities before they quit. That’s not good for anyone.
Bitching about unions making industries less efficient is sort of like bitching about voters making government less efficient. Might be true, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
[quote=“CitizenPained, post:35, topic:584219”]
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/pupil.gif
it’s all on www.ed.gov but deep linking doesn’t work to the direct page.
the Median pay is 51K here for teachers still not amazing, and I am actually working on starting a fund to help get more money to teachers who do need it.
Teacher pay is an issue, as is attracting good teachers in the sciences, however it is not only about money it is how that money is spent and allocated.
At least in my state the pay schedule is fixed, it does not matter what subject you teach, or teach how well you teach it. Your pay is based on time of service and the number of post bachelor’s credits.
This means that the pay for a science teacher, a job which may have had 3 qualified applicants pre-recession vs a English teacher, who would typically have ~80+ applicants you have to pay the same for both positions.
This type of union pay schedule may have worked well when you are fighting for assembly worker pay (although I am not sure of this) but it does not work well for knowledge workers.
Incentive pay is a very complex and difficult to apply fairly but it appears to help attract better teachers.
The Unions fight even the concept of any merit based pay.
Here is the Cite for that:
Wage Frictions and Teacher Quality: An Empirical Analysis of
Differential Effects Across Subject Areas
But now I ask for your cite your source that supports the union’s claim that education spending relates to education quality and that pay levels are the only cause of retention problems for STEM teachers.
Pay based on time of service != experiance
you get the same pay increase if you do the minimum to keep your job or if you work very hard (which I would say the majority of teachers do)
As for the review and penalty, maybe things are vastly different in Colorado but in Washington state it is almost impossible.
I grew up in Wyoming, I had an English teacher who was known to be ineffective when my father had her in 1958, she was still known when I had her in 1988. She retired in 2008.
The State University would actually make students who had taken classed from her take remedial English.
I personally remember several attempts to lay her off but the union came to bat for her every time.
Getting rid of the very small number of bad teachers is just as difficult. We are not talking about teachers who are not meeting horrid programs like no child left behind, we are talking about teachers that are known to just be bad.
Making the kids that get those teachers deal with the loss of opportunity to learn and forcing those ill prepared students onto other teachers who are good seems unfair to me but the Unions find it important to fight for every one of them.
IMHO most teachers are trying hard, but this is about unions, I think these are examples that show how they can be “Bad”
It would be interesting to see if having more then one Union serving an area would fix some of these issues, but it would be unrealistic to have that happen.
Feel free to rip me apart, I will be away, Maybe in a few days I will come back and argue the positive sides of unions, as there are several.
Absolutely false. Management does have a choice, and does not have to sign a contract. Your assertion is false.
Straw man. No union, AFAIK, has ever claimed to be about “the People”, at least no union in the US. Unions are about union members and about people who do the same type of work that union members do.
Absolutely false, again. The early union movement needed government help to keep corporations from committing acts of brutal violence, not the other way around. It wasn’t as if the unions could just whistle up the state militias or the police to shoot into crowds or crack heads, after all. It’s not as if the unions had lots of money to hire private agencies to infiltrate and instigate acts of violence, like companies did.
We’ve been over this before on this board: cite
If you want to see more, and know more about the history of the US labor movement, I’d suggest reading the whole thread. The discussion was lively at times, especially over the last 4-5 pages, and there is a lot of good information there.
[quote=“rat_avatar, post:37, topic:584219”]
DPS has merit pay. The unions endorsed it, provided they it works out the way its supposed to.
I never said that pay levels were the only cause for retention problems. Can you cite where I said that, please?
Smaller classes, better-educated teachers, books & supplies, kids that actually know how to read: that doesn’t sound good to you? :dubious:
How about: 45 kids in one ESL class, few supplies (that teachers aren’t paying for themselves, I mean), poor administration/control/discipline problems and kids who have a hard time reading and speaking English?
Welcome to my Geography class a year ago.
And that was the easy part…
We were supposed to differentiate, do fun things, have them learn stuff they’d be tested on, keep decorum, plan group activities, test, have them write essays, etc., etc.. It would take about 3 hours planning for one lesson.
That was one out of five classes. One. So that class kind of got the shaft: lot of out of the textbook stuff. History and World History was a bit better. Sad to say, the higher the grade, the smaller the class: kids dropped out.
My jr-sr class had 22 kids which was HUGE. 10 or so made it to graduation.