Yes. So what do you mean by your opinion aligns with how unions are percieved? Now, or then? They’re still favored by a majority, after all.
In a later poll, numbers aren’t even that encouraging.
This Slate piece discusses the poll and the effects:
(Quoting another article from the Left Business Observer)
The whole article is worth a read.
I meant the obvious which I’ve already stated. The reason it’s declining is because of what people see and experience around them.
There are a number of reasons IMHO
The biggest is that the labor union structure does not work well for knowledge workers.
I know I was frustrated that be held back by a silly seniority system because some guy started two weeks before me, even if he was a close to worthless employee.
Second, they (have to) go to bat for some pretty ugly members, like here in Seattle the police union often fights to keep violent members on the force.
Third, they tend to spew a lot of obvious BS as an example here is the text of a robo call I got at home earlier this summer from the Teamsters when there was a garbage strike.
Now I actually sided with the drivers in this dispute but to claim that out of state CDL drivers are going to kill your children is just absurd.
It would have been nice had the unions adapted but I think they are the ones that are mostly responsible for their own decline. IMHO the unions care more about saving the huge institutions and power structures than they are interested in helping workers.
But they are seeing LESS violence today than they saw in the past, when their approval of unions was HIGHER.
So that doesn’t line up.
Yeah I guess that was kind of my point. However, when are they going to train for these vocations? High School?
As was pointed out to you already, the violence you see now is less because there is less of a reason for the union to exist at all much less the cause for violence.
Violence was seen as a means to an end and needed 50 years ago. Not so much today. You see, we have evolved so should the unions.
Fine.
It doesn’t matter WHY there is less violence. The fact is that there is less violence. So violence is a very unlikely reason for the decline in public opinion of unions.
I was just reading a book about Sammy “The Bull” Gravano-by Peter Maas. It explains how Gravano (John Gotti Mafia underling) made a fortune in the NYC construction business, in the mid-1980’s. Gravano owned a non-union construction firm. He was able to secure contracts, even though NYC construction was heavily unionized. How did he do it? He would make lavish payoffs to the construction union bosses-upwards of $200,000 was not uncommon. These payments would be made in cash, and were untraceable. In effect, the union bosses sold their own members down the river-and Gravano cold underbid unionized firms by over 50%
One day, a union boss (named O’Connor) happened upon a job site that was being worked by Gravano’s firm…O’Connor immediately tried to shut it down (bringing in union goons)…Gravano showed up, and O"Connor was shown the error of his ways. The goons disappeared (after an appropriate bribe was paid), and the work resumed. nion corruption conspiring with the Mob-one reason why unions are in decline.
There’s corruption, including organized crime, in alot of places. Casinos were teeming with Mob corruption - are they to be considered corrupt now? Do Americans hate them? No, actually, casinos are opening up all over the country and are very popular.
This is not a reason unions are in decline either. Corruption in unions is also pretty rare these days, due to new regulations and enforcement.
I do feel like there is less perceived mob-like corruption these days, outside of, say, NE US garbage pickup.
Most of the reason for the decline of public opinion about unions is because of mythology created by conservatives. They fault unions for the failure of our auto industry without a lick of accountability to the management despite the fact that German and Japanese automakers are fully unionized (heck their entire society is much more unionized). Their public sector employees are also unionized at higher levels than here and yet their teachers tend to garner more public respect because their politicians don’t get on TV and basically call them leeches on society.
Or that Unions just don’t do much for their members.
[
](http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2016429949_hertz07m.html)
Sure they were trying to get their jobs back but Minimum wage in this state is $9.04.
So here you have CDL coach drivers who have no healthcare vacation or sick leave and work for just slightly more than minimum wage and less than you make at a local fast food restaurant. Where you often get health benefits, vacation and sick leave.
Yet they get to pay dues!!!
:smack:
You’re basic argument against unions seems to be that they are too weak.
First I am not “against” unions.
Second yes, they did that to them self.
I see the Chicago teachers are on strike.
Good for them.
So the EMPLOYER gives them no benefits and low pay, and you blame the union?
At least with a union they have a chance.
Unions overall have undeniably raised pay and benefits and improved working conditions for workers, far beyond what they pay in dues.
It’s the classic right wing strategy (not that he’s right wing, but maybe he is) - starve your enemy, then blame him for being hungry.
I am oblivious. Do you mean this with a twinge of sarcasm? Or are you being perfectly straightforward?
In either case, I’d be interested in a more detailed explanation of your views about the Chicago teachers’ strike, so I can put your “good for them” in context.
We get to see if the Chicago teachers resort to violence.