Exactly. I would much prefer to negotiate my own contract (and thus, keep my union dues) as the bargaining team really only looks out for themselves and things that are important to them.
You have started your own personal thread, outside the one the rest of us are on.
Here, let me spoon feed you - I am talking about the claim that the fact that you or anyone else witnessed an act does NOT prove that such an act is “almost universal” or otherwise widespread. I am not saying you didn’t see what you saw. Of course you did. I dispute the conclusion that you or others might make based on what you saw.
That is why you need to get back into the thread.
And then someone could say “Personally, I think most corporations are corrupt…”
Still doesn’t shed light on anything.
If you are like most union workers, your “personal contract” would be crap compared to what you could get with a union. It would more than pay for its dues.
Unions won much higher wages. Unions won paid vacation and sick time, and benefits like health care. No individual would get those things on their own by negotiating. They’d be laughed at. Why give them to just you when the next guy can do your job?
That is the purpose of unions. Perhaps you are so used to their benefits now that you don’t see that any more. Perhaps you think they aren’t necessary any more. But I’ll note that earnings for the bottom 90% have not increased, ahead of inflation, for the last 3 decades. This correlates closely with the decline in unions.
You completely missed the big fight in Wisconsin this year, where they did exactly that for most state public workers?
As for outlawing all unions, you can bet there are plenty of people out there who want that, including members of Congress and others in high places.
I never said it did. But I’m not the only one telling tales of corrupt union officials in this thread.
But you’re the one that jumped into the different thread. The question posed was “Why did the general public turn against unions?” And the answer is that a lot of members of the general public have witnessed union guys doing unsavory things.
Again, I did the math. You are wrong. The proposed cuts to my health insurance benefits were less than the actual cuts the union ended up securing plus the union dues I had to pay so one of their jackass reps could sit in the room while my co-workers hammered out the contract.
Then what is your point?
You simply misunderstood me, and ignored my repeated urgings for you to read the thread more carefully. Next time, please simply read it. I think I made myself very clear.
But that doesn’t really work as an explanation. Violence in union disputes (including violence from the other side) was much more common in labor’s earlier history, yet unions were more popular then. Union violence is much less common now, yet union approval has dropped (though it is still at a majority of Americans, I’ll remind you).
So I don’t see that as an explanation.
But you’re not comparing it to what you’d get if you had no union at all. Do you really think you can get a better deal on your own?
You can’t count LOSSES to a contract that already contains GAINS from many years and compare that to your dues.
What gains? The union was brand new and was only able to come up with a contract that was worse (including union dues) than what my employer initially proposed.
Money well spent.
Yes, I am aware of the changes in the law in Wisconsin. But so far as I am aware, the law did not either outlaw public sector unions or forbid them from collective bargaining. It forbid the state from entering into any collective bargaining agreement for longer than one year. The only people who completely lost the right to collectively bargain, as I understand it, are University of Wisconsin System employees, employees of the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority, and certain home care and child care providers…not “most state public workers.”
Or am I mistaken?
You are saying that your union came in and negotiated a contract that was worse than what the employer initially offered?
Or that it simply got nothing better in total compensation (not that this is the only thing a union gets you, but whatever) than the dues?
How much are your dues?
Some lost all rights, some lost some rights, a few kept their rights. Most state public workers lost all, or some, of their rights.
This is quibbling though. You said:
Not everyone in Wisconsin has that right (or in a few other states).
lance strongarm, I’m giving you a formal warning about these posts. Personal insults aren’t allowed here. You’ve been advised about this several times and you need to start taking it seriously.
This is also inappropriate. Knock it off, both of you.
I agree: this thread needs to improve immediately or I’ll just close it. Personal remarks about other users and junior-moderating are not wanted in this forum. Make your arguments and discuss the facts and opinions without insulting other posters.
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 isn’t a court of law. It’s the court of public opinion and the thread is about why the narrative changed against unions. If you don’t believe it’s because of negative experiences that people have been exposed to then you’re free to dream up whatever makes your universe whole. Personally, I don’t give a crap if you believe me or not. It doesn’t change anything.
Worse when union dues are factored in, yes.
Well, my position is that everyone should have that right, and it should be protected by law.
And that employers should have the right to fire striking workers.
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.
Much of the good done by unions today is pretty low-visibility, but the bad makes headlines and inconveniences the public. And some of the good is questionable. A proud accomplishment by the union as perceived by its members can sour public opinion. Take the mail-moving example from earlier in the thread (p76), but shifting it to a job I know. I’d love to get paid my well-trained and experienced chemist wages to do tech work (pride and boredom aside, although if we’re talking about perceptions I wouldn’t be bothered by this as a stereotypical union worker), but that rewards me for becoming overqualified in an unwanted skill and blocks out three techs from entry level positions. Jobs that three unemployed would love to have and that the employer would love provide. I’ve now potentially created a barrier to entry to my profession, contributed to unemployment, decreased the company’s productivity, and increased prices for consumers.
Most would forgive me this selfishness, and many might not even know about it if I keep my mouth shut. But if I go out trying to convince the world that they’re all actually better off with the company being stuck where I’m not wanted? I expect that will piss people off a bit. In fact, if my purpose were to make unions look bad, I might deliberately go out of my way to spout off about how great the protection of my job is.
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.
And to address some of the other changes in Wisconsin law: workers should absolutely be able to opt-out – that is, choose to not join the union.
Of course anyone can believe anything they want.
And I can criticize it for being irrational.
If you want to believe something, go ahead. If you are posting it here and asking others to believe it, let alone comment on it, it’s perfectly appropriate for someone to say that your belief doesn’t stand up to basic standards of logic.