Well, if we are going to bring up ancient history (even you aren’t old enough to remember when we adopted the 8 hour work day 'luci :p), let’s keep in mind how the Republicans handled that whole slavery thingy, right?
As I asked earlier, what have unions done for us lately? I mean, yeah, it’s great that they helped bring about all those things, but, well, most of them were so far in the past that I doubt there are more than a handful of posters on this board who were even kids when the latest on your list was enacted.
Yeah…it does. I’d check the source and then look to see if that story is on any sort of mainstream site before posting it though. I mean, this sounds awfully suspicious to me ‘There was plenty of ugliness on the faces of the socialist goons who showed up at the state Capitol Tuesday to demonstrate against a new state law that will prohibit unions from requiring membership as a condition of employment’. ‘Socialist goons’? :dubious:
ETA: A quick google search turns up this story only on conservative news sites, so it seems pretty suspicious to me. YMMV.
True enough, those are the Golden Hits. And what have they done for us, lately? Kinda depends on who you mean by “us”.
The union power was born of brutal necessity, in a struggle against selfish and heartless men. It was hard, it was bloody, and it was long. Now, if you want to offer the case that we have evolved, our businessmen are far more humane and conscientious than the capitalists of the Dark Days, all well and good. I would largely agree, our society has evolved and progressed. Need I mention whom I credit with leading that change, that progress? No, I didn’t think so…
But are we angels, now? Do you never hear any stories about American workers being exploited and bullied by their employers? Coal miners, for instance, who work for a company that deliberately puts their lives at risk. Liberal media didn’t make that up, it happens.
Of course everyone prefers calm and reasoned compromise between all parties. And, for the most part, that is what we have, Debs be praised! But if that fails, and only one party has any effective power, then the employee is, as Kropotkin put it, “boned”.
Negotiation is possible only with effective power behind it. Without any significant power behind you, you are no longer negotiating, you are begging.
What, unions are partisan? So? Chamber of Commerce is partisan as all git out, anybody fashioning legislation to curb their power? How about the American Medical Association, do doctors pay dues? People organizing to obtain and use poltical and economic power is as American as pecan pie. Apple pie is American, sure, but not as much.
Chamber of Commerce does not enjoy special legal protections, nor are you required to join if you wish to open a company.
AMA charges dues, but Doctors are not required to join. Doctors also are not allowed to unionize (that is seen as price collusion / fixing if too many Doctors band together).
So, you can’t think of anything they have done for us lately either? However you define ‘us’. To me, it’s the equivalent of abolitionists. Yeah, they had a hell of an impact. We should definitely respect the movement, venerate their achievements and give them kudos. But, you know, we don’t really need them anymore. Sure sure…slavery COULD make a big comeback, but probably not. As you say, society has evolved and progressed.
Today, unions serve no purpose in the US. This doesn’t take away from the legacy we all owe to organized labor in this country, but they are a relic of a time that’s come and gone. We HAVE all of those benefits that organized labor bought for us with their sweat and blood…those genies are never, ever going back in the bottle. I figure that they had a good last 20 or so years when they got a free ride without being necessary…time to let them fade away.
I also note that AT&T had quite a bit more market penetration than the UAW has. I honestly cannot take seriously any argument that a market sector where 15%ish of workers are union is under monopoly control–the option of “no union at all” is currently winning by a country mile even after recent efforts to diminish unions.
Without my union, I would have no health insurance, as I would not have the weight of the organization to help me leverage costs down to a reasonable level.
Without my union, I would have no pension plan.
Without my union, I would not have a training trust to help me acquire new skills & knowledge.
Without my union, I would not have access to a credit union.
Without my union, I would have to negotiate employment terms with every hotel, casino, convention space, theater, TV or film producer, etc. in town that wanted to hire me, including (but not limited to) breaks, pay scale, work hours, working conditions and scope of work.
Unions do indeed still serve a purpose.
ETA: Without my union, I would be nearly powerless in most disputes with any employer.
And yet most Americans aren’t in unions and have those things. I’m not and I have all of those things that are applicable, plus a few you don’t. Have you considered that you’ve been drinking the kool aide on some of the stuff you think the union is getting for you? Unless you are so without skill that the union is simply protecting your job and salary in which case you are right. But I’m guessing that’s not the case for you, and that your skills would secure you what you need…just like the majority of your fellow, nonunion neighbors could tell you.
You sound like a contract actor or model. You do know that contract workers often have pretty good bargaining power in many industries? And, on that point, that non-union organization can (and in fact, often do) all of the above?
That’s three partisan shots and counting…can’t we discuss the substance of labor laws and unions instead?
These two posts seem to reflect a romantic view of unions on your part. The struggle you describe was between two groups trying to gain the advantage in the marketplace. Both used whatever tools were at their disposal. Thankfully, for the most part this meant political lobbying and getting out the vote. But violence certainly did occur, but please don’t kid yourself by thinking it was only on the side of the employers. Here are three examples.
I don’t think anyone is saying the unions should not exist. No one is asking to disband unions and instead rely on goodwill. I would argue, however, that under current federal labor law, free and equal negotiation between union and employer is impossible, owing to undue power granted to one side over the other by Congress and the courts over the years.
15%ish of all workers nationwide are union. The figure for certain industries (older manufacturing and government jobs, mainly) is much higher. The individual “market sectors” (industries) are exactly what we’re talking about.
I am not in a union, but I enjoy all these things (your fifth isn’t applicable). This isn’t an either/or situation.
[QUOTE=XT]
So, you can’t think of anything they have done for us lately either? However you define ‘us’. To me, it’s the equivalent of abolitionists. Yeah, they had a hell of an impact. We should definitely respect the movement, venerate their achievements and give them kudos. But, you know, we don’t really need them anymore. Sure sure…slavery COULD make a big comeback, but probably not. As you say, society has evolved and progressed.
[/QUOTE]
These comments make it seem like you believe worker exploitation doesn’t happen anymore in the United States. It does. You pointed out that most Americans aren’t exploited and so may not need unions at all. That’s fantastic, but not true of everyone. Unions still serve a vital purpose for many American workers, as you can plainly see when thousands of protesters marched on Michigan’s capital building in order to protect them. Unless you think they’re not being sincere, or are misinformed, or are not important?
Obviously union jobs will provide upward pressure on other jobs in the same area. A non union shop has to compete with the union shop for workers. So that’s one thing they do.
The people who bring up, “Unions were great once, but we don’t need them any more.” are acting like anti-vaxxers.
Yeah, why should you vaccinate your kid against measles? You’ve never even heard of anyone with measles. That’s the fucking point!
Unions made it possible to have the worker rights we have today. Don’t think in their absence that employers won’t walk back increases. Stagnant wages and shrinking benefits already show this.
Have you considered that my line of work is not at all comprised of traditional hours or skills? That I don’t have “a job”, as such? Not everyone has a “traditional” 9-5 job with weekends off.
Without my union, I’m one guy bouncing from gig to gig to gig, with no continuity other than my own presence. I have never lacked for work, but no matter how hard I worked, I would never have been able to get my own credit union chartered. I would never have been able to get the same rate for health insurance negotiating just for myself. I would never be able to afford a training facility just for me. Etc., etc.
With my union, I am bound up with people with similar skill sets working in the same fields on similar endeavors. I am bound up with people who also need health insurance, continuing education, and a place to bank that understands our careers and the way we live our lives. I chose to become a union member because my local showed me that they could help me make a better living and have a better life than I could have fending for myself all the time.
The argument you make for not having union membership (that most people have the things that my union has helped me to secure) could easily be applied to other groupings and quickly shows itself to be preposterous, IMO.
The thing is, Michigan’s new law isn’t at all about reform. It’s about crushing unions, just like Wisconsin’s law restricting unions.
I still think that the Michigan law flies in the face of Beck.
Part of the reason, I think, that 'luci seems to you to be taking lots of partisan shots is that although you think you are putting forth a neutral tone and argument, you are coming across as fairly partisan yourself.
Thus far, you seem to have spent a lot of time decrying that the unions have the deck stacked, while the poor employers are unfairly bound by the law of the land.
For instance, please don’t stoop to trying to equate any of the violence that union members have committed with the state-sponsored murders and terrorism that employers have purchased and backed. We’ve done that in previous union threads, and if you want to start in on that, I guarantee I can show many more deaths and ruined lives caused by employers than you can show caused by union members or organizing.
You do seem to be well-informed about labor law and it’s history, and I think that’s terrific: it contributes a lot to the discussion and debate. But so far you seem to come down heavily in favor of employers and you seem to have a disdain for unions.
So, having said that, I’m curious to hear: how would you go about reforming things in labor law? What would be the goals of your reforms and how would you go about trying to implement them?
Do you agree that the laws we have now, including the Taft-Hartley Act, were and have been an attempt to rectify an imbalance of power that was harmful to our society as a whole? Or do you have some other view?
I decided the question about reform would just end up being a hijack of this thread so I started this new thread about the reform of US labor law for anyone who wants to contribute their US$.02 about what they consider to be the problems with current laws and their thoughts on solutions to same.
** Snowboarder Bo** points out several examples of how workers can benefit from being in a union in a RTW state, while still allowing workers with sufficient skill to go it alone to compete.
I’d wager that XT (and I) would disagree with your definition of “worker exploitation.” Would you care to give it?
There are advantages to not being in a union as well. You can make your own deal, for one, bargaining as an individual instead of en mass. Unions tend to value seniority over than merit, so an above-average employee might be better off on his own. Ideally, employees should have the option of union or non-union, and better still, which union suits them most.
The Michigan law is the only labor reform that Michigan can accomplish. They are authorized by Taft-Hartley to pass such a law. They can’t repeal or overturn the NLRA on their own, after all. RTW is the only tool in their box.
If that’s the case, then it’s a simple matter of filing a suit.
I’m discussing the law and unions, he’s demonizing Republicans, by name. That’s the partisanship I referred to.
They are easily equated.
Thank you. My “coming down heavily in favor of employers” is a desire for balance between union and labor under the law, which doesn’t presently exist. As to a disdain for unions:
I disagree with your assessment. Unions, for the most part, have just responded rationally to the laws as written. It’s the law that needs changing, there’s nothing wrong with the existence of unions.
I shall answer your other questions in this thread.
Indeed he does, and “Workers can benefit from being in a union, while still allowing workers to go it alone” is exactly the ideal we should be seeking.