then I am glad I did not make that claim. I do make the claim that wealth inequality is as bad or worse than it was in the Gilded Age, because the numbers bear me out. And labor conditions are certainly sliding back toward where they were a hundred years ago. They have a long way to go, but until the workers literally get their act together, they’ll keep sliding, and eventually … they’ll get there.
In 1920, management was narrowly limited in its ability to source labor. Sure, you could move your factory to Tennessee, but you sure as hell couldn’t move it to China. I doubt unions will ever be able to equalize wages again.
You never know how useful a union can be. My wife is a teacher. A few years ago there was a situation where she had a serious confrontation with a parent. It went all the way to the school board. The union provided the help my wife needed to convince the board directors to side with my wife on the issue.
You specifically made the claim that “now more than ever” we need unions. I take that to mean that you believe conditions are worse now than they have ever been–that is what is meant by “more than ever”.
Whatever source you got this one from was lying.
For instance
Companies are going to cry poverty of course - while sitting on tons of money and giving their top execs gigantic raises. The poor working slob is not going to be able to do anything about it by himself. During the recession lots of companies got concessions from unions and individual workers. Now that profitability is back are they restoring these willingly? Not hardly.
Maybe you should reconsider your position.
If you have a good union, at least someone is looking out for you. As is mentioned towards the end of the article I link to below, there may be no one else to turn to.
I think that’s the basic question that needs to be addressed to answer the OP’s question: what do you [general you] think would happen to the state of worker’s rights (including benefits, salaries, hours, ability to negotiate them, etc.) without unions?
Fair enough. It was badly phrased. Consider that claim retracted. We still do need unions, or more to the point, something like them. I personally think a trade association for workers to join is what is needed, since businesses will fight like hell prevent unions but may not be able to fight workers’ trade associations.
I recall a conversation/debate in an older thread regarding this issue in which the other Doper said he’d been able to negotiate with his bosses in every job he’d ever had. When I pointed out that it wasn’t possible to do that in my line of work because everything had to be negotiated via collective bargaining with the district, he thought it was awful and couldn’t understand why everyone couldn’t just negotiate on their own without a union.
My response: If the manager/boss/admin./whoever does not want to hear from the employees regarding workers’ rights and the workers have no union or do not wish to form one, then what is the solution?
The solution is “do a better job” or “go elsewhere and do a better job” and as always, “brown-nose, brown-nose, brown-nose!”
This solution brought to you by Libertarians and Conservatives of America.
Addendum: “Quit complaining about your sucky job and be glad you have one, America-hater!”
There is a worse evil than having no Unions, and that’s the apathy of being able to change anything at all, and it’s endemic in the workplace.
Suppose youi belong to a corrupt union-like the one in Ön The water". Your boss (in the union) decides who will work, and for how much-and steals "dues"from you.
Not essentially different from a tyrannical boss.
This could be an argument for or against unions, depending on the view of whether your wife was in the right or in the wrong. The question would be was the union helping a teacher out of an unfair complaint or did they protect someone that should have been disciplined.