# Unions in America: When did the narrative change? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2012, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126 "2012-08-30T10:27:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/361 "2012-09-06T12:49:03Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I think earlier violence was balanced by seriously egregious and visible shit perpetrated by management back then. We don’t see that now. If the relatively low levels of violence now are all perceived to be by labor, I expect that to create more negative feelings toward unions. I’m not comfortable with that idea. I don’t think people had a higher opinion of unions because management was violent too. But maybe you’re right. Maybe unions were perceived as defending themselves. > [@](#): > > Unions might be wise to better publicize their accomplishments, but only so long as they are careful to be cognizant of whether their message actually resonates with the general public. Good comments. I think that’s true too, but there’s clearly a bias against unions, backed by false information and poor critical thinking, that makes that harder. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/362 "2012-09-06T12:51:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, my position is that everyone should have that right, and it should be protected by law. Okay. Just pointing out that this right is under attack. It was also attacked in Ohio, by the way, but the voters there overturned it. > [@](#): > > And that employers should have the right to fire striking workers. If they can do that, it would pretty much destroy unions, so the prohibition against that is part of protecting collective-bargaining rights by law. A workers should be able to choose a union without fear of retaliation, or it’s not a choice. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/363 "2012-09-06T12:52:22Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Worse when union dues are factored in, yes. How much are the union dues? The company offered more in salary increases than this amount, before the union was certified? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/364 "2012-09-06T12:53:29Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Claim: “Violence is near universal.” > Counter: “No it’s not.” > > Which one is a negative statement that is being asked to be proved again? This is how it went: Claim: “Violence is near universal.” Counter: “Prove it.” Claimant: “Prove it’s not!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/365 "2012-09-06T13:05:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Okay. Just pointing out that this right is under attack. > > It was also attacked in Ohio, by the way, but the voters there overturned it. > > If they can do that, it would pretty much destroy unions, so the prohibition against that is part of protecting collective-bargaining rights by law. > > A workers should be able to choose a union without fear of retaliation, or it’s not a choice. Choose a union? Sure. Choose to stop doing his job? No. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/366 "2012-09-06T13:12:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Choose a union? Sure. Choose to stop doing his job? No. Some union don’t have a legal right to strike, such as airline and rail workers and some federal workers. But those workers have far greater legal protections of their rights to represent workers and collectively bargain than those with the right to strike. if you want to extend those to all workers, I would be happy with it, and they probably would be too. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/367 "2012-09-06T13:15:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Choose a union? Sure. Choose to stop doing his job? No. Why shouldn’t a worker be allowed to choose to stop doing his job? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/368 "2012-09-06T13:19:26Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Why shouldn’t a worker be allowed to choose to stop doing his job? He can… but he cannot expect to keep his job after refusing to do it. To review, here is the discussion that led to my statement: > [@Bricker](#): > > And that employers should have the right to fire striking workers. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If they can do that, it would pretty much destroy unions, so the prohibition against that is part of protecting collective-bargaining rights by law. > > A workers should be able to choose a union without fear of retaliation, or it’s not a choice. > [@Bricker](#): > > Choose a union? Sure. Choose to stop doing his job? No. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/369 "2012-09-06T13:21:58Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Some union don’t have a legal right to strike, such as airline and rail workers and some federal workers. But those workers have far greater legal protections of their rights to represent workers and collectively bargain than those with the right to strike. if you want to extend those to all workers, I would be happy with it, and they probably would be too. I think everyone should have the legal right to strike, and everyone should have the right to fire their own striking workers. If some parade of horribles resulted from that, I would be open to changing my mind. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/370 "2012-09-06T13:25:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think everyone should have the legal right to strike, and everyone should have the right to fire their own striking workers. If strikers can be fired, though, there’s no point in having a legal right to it. It would be completely toothless. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/371 "2012-09-06T13:46:51Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If strikers can be fired, though, there’s no point in having a legal right to it. It would be completely toothless. No one has a general right to keep a job. The presumed advantage the union has is to say to the employer: you will lose all of us, at once, and have to make do with untrained replacements. Our value to you is in a trained workforce. When the union demands laws that forbid the employers from firing striking workers, they are saying, in effect, “We can force you to capitulate, because we can refuse to work at no real risk to us.” This reminds me of the scene in Princess Bride in which the Westley, the Man in Black, faces Fezzik, the role played by Andre the Giant. After Westley wryly observes that Fezzik might have a slight advantage in hand-to-hand combat, Fezzik replies, “It’s not my fault I’m the biggest and the strongest. I don’t even exercise!” The proper role of government is not to step in and equalize the perceived differences between contestants. It’s to provide a framework in which all persons can act freely. I’m free to quit; my employer is free to fire me. If they think I’m not adding value to the company, they SHOULD fire me. If I think they are treating me unfairly, I should quit – or threaten to quit unless they make right what they are doing wrong. If I’ve banded together with 5,000 of my co-workers, that should be a more potent threat, but they should still be free to take the loss, fire me and my pals, and hire new faces. Just as I am free to walk away and get a new job. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/372 "2012-09-06T13:52:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No one has a general right to keep a job. > > The presumed advantage the union has is to say to the employer: you will lose all of us, at once, and have to make do with untrained replacements. Our value to you is in a trained workforce. Sometimes that works. Sometimes, as in the case of unskilled work with easy replacements, it consigns workers to desperate poverty and no recourse. It makes unions toothless. > [@](#): > > When the union demands laws that forbid the employers from firing striking workers, they are saying, in effect, “We can force you to capitulate, because we can refuse to work at no real risk to us.” There is plenty of risk to workers in a strike though. They lose their pay, and they risk losing what they asked for anyway. They also risk putting their employer out of business, which is something they don’t take lightly. I’ll remind you that employers can and sometimes to use the lockout, which is the reverse of a strike, against workers. > [@](#): > > The proper role of government is not to step in and equalize the perceived differences between contestants. It’s to provide a framework in which all persons can act freely. The law was designed to provide a framework where everyone can act in their own best interests, including choosing to give up a little freedom in exchange for something else. > [@](#): > > I’m free to quit; my employer is free to fire me. If they think I’m not adding value to the company, they SHOULD fire me. If I think they are treating me unfairly, I should quit – or threaten to quit unless they make right what they are doing wrong. If I’ve banded together with 5,000 of my co-workers, that should be a more potent threat, but they should still be free to take the loss, fire me and my pals, and hire new faces. But that’s basically saying there should be no unions. > [@](#): > > Just as I am free to walk away and get a new job. More like you are free to walk away and be unemployed for a long long time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/373 "2012-09-06T14:01:59Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Sometimes that works. Sometimes, as in the case of unskilled work with easy replacements, it consigns workers to desperate poverty and no recourse. It makes unions toothless. Do you believe an employer has an obligation to provide jobs for particular employees? Or that a worker has some sort of right to a job? Yes, you’re right – sometimes, and especially in the case of unskilled work, it’s not a potent threat. So what? The government’s role is not to force a company to provide jobs for one set of workers over another, or even to force a company to provide any jobs at all. > [@](#): > > The law was designed to provide a framework where everyone can act in their own best interests, including choosing to give up a little freedom in exchange for something else. But in this case, the company doesn’t choose to give up the freedom – it is taken from them. > [@](#): > > But that’s basically saying there should be no unions. No – it’s saying that unions should operate in the framework of freedom. > [@](#): > > More like you are free to walk away and be unemployed for a long long time. Maybe so – but that’s a consequence of my freedom not to give you a job. And if you’re competent, then someone will hire you. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/374 "2012-09-06T14:35:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He can… but he cannot expect to keep his job after refusing to do it. To review, here is the discussion that led to my statement: Right: My question can be phrased, why can’t the worker expect to keep his job after refusing to do it? ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/375 "2012-09-06T14:36:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe an employer has an obligation to provide jobs for particular employees? Or that a worker has some sort of right to a job? It’s not about an obligation to provide jobs in perpetuity. It’s about whether the government can impose limits on \*what \*a person can be fired for. As I understand it, even in at-will states, it’s illegal to fire someone for being the “wrong” race or gender. That doesn’t create “an obligation to provide jobs” or a “right to a job”, does it? Striking is not the same thing as simply stopping working. Otherwise we might as well talk about the right to quit your job, or go on holiday, or be ill. Striking is the temporary, collective withdrawal of labour as a tool of negotiation. The right to strike without being fired for it simply means that you can’t be fired for negotiating effectively. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/376 "2012-09-06T14:39:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, you’re right – sometimes, and especially in the case of unskilled work, it’s not a potent threat. So what? The government’s role is not to force a company to provide jobs for one set of workers over another, or even to force a company to provide any jobs at all. An unskilled worker with job security is more likely to be able to either get skills or have children in the position to become skilled workers. An unskilled worker without job security is more likely to remain unskilled and have unskilled children. A nation with more skilled workers is better off than a nation with fewer unskilled workers. An inability to fire striking workers leads to increased job security. So, an inability to fire striking workers is a viable path toward improving a nation with a lot of unskilled workers. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/377 "2012-09-06T14:51:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe an employer has an obligation to provide jobs for particular employees? Or that a worker has some sort of right to a job? No. I’m saying that your statement that a worker has a right to a union is negated if strikers aren’t protected. > [@](#): > > Yes, you’re right – sometimes, and especially in the case of unskilled work, it’s not a potent threat. So what? The government’s role is not to force a company to provide jobs for one set of workers over another, or even to force a company to provide any jobs at all. Unions aren’t about that. They’re about getting decent pay for the work. > [@](#): > > No – it’s saying that unions should operate in the framework of freedom. By that standard, there should be no unions. > [@](#): > > Maybe so – but that’s a consequence of my freedom not to give you a job. And if you’re competent, then someone will hire you. Lots of unemployed competent people out there now. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/378 "2012-09-06T15:14:47Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > An unskilled worker with job security is more likely to be able to either get skills or have children in the position to become skilled workers. > > An unskilled worker without job security is more likely to remain unskilled and have unskilled children. > > A nation with more skilled workers is better off than a nation with fewer unskilled workers. > > An inability to fire striking workers leads to increased job security. > > So, an inability to fire striking workers is a viable path toward improving a nation with a lot of unskilled workers. And everyone should go to college and get an advanced degree too. ---
**Author:** ![pinkyvee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/6de8d8/32.png) [@pinkyvee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinkyvee)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/379 "2012-09-06T15:20:40Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > An inability to fire striking workers leads to increased job security. Maybe. Not necessarily. If a company cannot fire striking workers and is hemorrhaging money, that company may decide to pull up stakes and go erect their tent elsewhere. Decreased job security. I remember a grocery workers strike in Los Angeles a few years back. Ralphs Market. The strikers gave a very clear message to the public, which was “Buy groceries somewhere else.” A large portion of the public did shop elsewhere. Many of them discovered lower prices in “elsewhere” and once the strike ended they never returned. The outcome of this strike was interesting. “New hires would be on a much lower pay scale than existing workers and receive far less generous health benefits.”. The striking workers screwed new hires to get what they wanted. > **[Ralphs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralphs)** > > John Sparkenbach (VP of Operations) > Ralphs is an American supermarket chain in Southern California. The largest subsidiary of Cincinnati-based Kroger, it is the oldest such chain west of the Mississippi River. Kroger also operates stores under the Food 4 Less and Foods Co. names in California. > Ralphs Grocery Company was founded in 1873 in Los Angeles by George Albert Ralphs and his brother, Walter Benjamin Ralphs. Ralphs teamed with S. A. Francis in 1873 to open the Ralphs & Francis store at... The other remarkable thing about that strike is that Ralphs hired “scabs” to work. Some replacement workers were, in reality, striking workers. “On October 16, 2006, Ralphs agreed to pay $70 million to settle felony charges that it illegally rehired locked out employees using false names and social security numbers during the strike. Fifty million dollars of the settlement was to be paid to eligible UFCW members, with the remainder being paid in fines to the federal government.” ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126/380 "2012-09-06T15:30:32Z")
Check out the union boss in “On The Waterfront”- “Johnny Friendly” was the kind of union boss I had in mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unions-in-america-when-did-the-narrative-change/633126.md?page=20)