Except the members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in Seattle. A few of them seem to think it’s ok.
500 of them, actually.
Certain services only make sense as monopolies. There’s only so much room for pipes and cables.
Essentially, a utility is a contractor providing a service to a government. That’s not really a monopoly at all when you think of it that way. The only difference is that the utility bills the customers directly.
And murderers think murder is okay. So what? We’re talking about our legal system. This is a silly response. These guys are subject to prosecution for crimes like any other.
Violence by unions, or by management, is rare and illegal. It’s not relevant to this discussion.
It IS relevant, because this thread is about perceptions. Labor violence has a profound negative influence, as does perceived corruption that leads to entrenched leadership and cronyism, be it in a union or a government. Democracy is great, but that’s never an excuse for those who subvert it from the public interest.
What does this have to do with anything? Yeah, the self-employed aren’t unionized, the service sector isn’t completely unionized, freelancers have a hard time. And taking unions away from those who can have them accomplishes what?
Not all union shops are that way, though.
I worked at an avionics factory with a contract with the Teamsters, and the place, while pretty easy-going, was big on productivity. You could also take as much overtime as you could stand, and the minimum time was 45 hours a week.
With the amount of money that was being poured into our compensation, the evolving-tech nature of the job, and the interconnectedness of the supply chain, I have to think working smarter was probably welcome. (And I know the guys with engineering degrees got promoted to management, out of the union, with salaries and the cheaper health insurance.)
Granted, that’s the Teamsters, mocked by other unions as the “Republican” union (they supported Dick Nixon). In a conservative part of the country. And an aerospace job with massive funds indirectly from DoD. I don’t think it was in any way typical.
I heard some of the whining about unions I’d expect in Ron Paul country: “Oh, they reward people who don’t want to work.” But from what I saw of the contract and the management, I think that sentiment was overblown.
No. The purpose of this thread is to ask why unions are viewed negatively.
Union violence is not as rare as you wish the readers of this thread to believe, especially low-level violence like pounding cars and shoving “scabs.” And the fact is that most ardent union sympathizers DON’T think that’s wrong. They think these people that cross picket lines deserve to get a few dents, on their bodies or on their cars.
Are we going to see some research or something that shows:
–Violence against the person or property of people crossing picket lines is common
–Most ardent union sympathizers believe that violence against the person or property of people crossing picket lines is justified
?
All I’m seeing so far is isolated anecdotes and assertions that begin with the phrase “the fact is.”
ETA: Heck, I’ll stick my neck out and say we further need documentation that violence by union members happens at a greater rate than violence by people from the general demographic of the union members. Because if not, then it’s not the union, it’s the demographic.
Bricker, the Longview Example isn’t a very good one for your purposes since, apparently, the union members involved believed tha union members had been attacked first. This wasn’t a case of them thinking it’s generally legitimate to be violent against people not in agreement with their actions as a union.
It is very easy to put down the opposing argument by citing examples of extreme behavior. This applies to both the capital and labor sides of the matter.
Few, if any, wish to argue from the standpoint of how well things operate where there is a balance and both parties have equal say in outcomes.
For balance to exist, there must be a parity of power.
Parity of power does not arise naturally, but is the result of fair regulation.
For fair regulation, you need impartial government that holds both parties to the standards that improve the situation for the common good.
Politicians today are notoriously unable to think in terms of the common good and are in fact mostly the lackeys of one party or the other which fund their election campaigns.
So impartial regulation is a near impossibility.
Balance cannot be found.
One side or the other is bound to get the upper hand and uses it to enforce their demands.
That is where we are today.
Conservative forces on the right have demonized the entire concept of unions and regulations through very effective propaganda campaigns that focus on the excesses of the other side and which ignore their own excesses.
As a result, wages and benefits are way down and corporate profits are higher than ever. Productivity is kept up by the simple means of threatening workers with loss of jobs if they do not produce more while receiving less pay and benefits.
Given the political situation in the US since Citizens United, it is very unlikely that the role of money in setting the tone and subject of public debate is going to change any time soon.
Consequently, the role of unions and the labor force will likely remain in decline while the power of employers and corporations continues to increase, along with their profitability.
The only way to de-link the role of money and its influence on the elected officials who can bring regulation and balance into the system, is to change how elections are funded. This can be done by making campaign funding public and anonymous, so that there is no way for an elected official to know who has contributed how much towards his or her campaign. That way elected officials are beholden to no specific person or group, but only to the public as a whole.
Those who prosper and profit from their influence on elected officials will fight this concept tooth and nail.
It comes down to the simple choice as to what democracy means: is it those with the greatest votes or those with the most money, who get to determine what are the issues, and how the issues are discussed; also, who are the candidates for office, and what priorities those candidates adhere to.
If he had said “the answer to the OP is the perception of labor violence” then maybe. But he’s not answering the OP’s question.
The fact is that labor (and management) violence has gone way down. So that wouldn’t explain why negative views of unions has gone up.
No, the purpose of this thread is to answer why unions are viewed negatively NOW when they didn’t used to be.
Violence in labor disputes - by both unions and management - used to be common a century ago. Both sides fought mean battles, and many on both sides were killed or injured. Those days are long gone. So saying that this relates to a change in perception about unions is not supported by the evidence.
You are just here to bash unions.
Lance, what is your theory?
I think unions have done a lot of good around the world in the last century. I don’t think the present form of them is the perfect final form of economic regulation.
Unions can serve as a form of cartelization of labor to counteract the power of concentrated capital. But we need an answer for small businesses and their employees, for freelancers, and so forth. That means thinking beyond traditional union tactics, or great numbers of us will be swallowed up by the big cartels of capital, and look at the unions and the government saying, “You’re no help.”
We can reform how capital is organized, or we can let “the invisible hand” lurch us back to peonage.
I think unions have a role to play in politics, if they actually push for worker and/or public participation in the nation’s wealth, and turn into social democratic parties as they did in Europe. But if they turn inward and only protect a narrow set of “their own,” they’ll end up hated much like any other unsympathetic elite.
I’m not sure, but I note that negative views of unions follows the overall neoconservative trend since 1980. I think it’s probably just part of that.
One reason people don’t understand or appreciate unions is that they are reaping the benefits of them without belonging. Unions fought for health care, the 40-hour work week, paid vacation and sick time, etc. Now people take those for granted, even people who aren’t in a union. They’ll have to lose them again before it dawns on them, I guess.
Do you want pride, or a living?
In Tennessee, there doesn’t seem to have ever been a pro-union era.
But Lance, I did belong to a union for 30 years, and yet my personal view has also slipped. I appreciate the benefits I received. Raises, health care, retirement, etc. These were not gifts to me from the union, they were negotiated with a very cooperative employer, committed to retaining the very best work force. With every raise came a dues increase. I paid for or worked for the goodies, they were not free.
I also paid for crap I did not want. For example, weekly offers in the mail to sell me stuff “This limited offer is for union members only”. Frequent political flyers telling me who or what to vote for or against. I find this offensive. My employer never sent me this crap, suggested I vote one way or another, or sold my address to outside interests. The union did. “My” union did.
In your opinion Lance, is it “legitimate union business” to extend union interests beyond negotiations for wages, benefits and working conditions for it’s membership?
That kinda runs against the perception that others have had in this thread that unions have too much power and management just cowers into demands, even demands which will bankrupt the company and/or handcuff them with an unproductive and unmanageable workforce (the opposite of what you claim motivated your employers). Unless you think that was the case since it’s not mutually exclusive to you being happy to get yours…
I pay for wars with my taxes that I don’t want. I pay for crap in my various insurance policies that I have that I don’t want or will never need. I am a member of the USBC (United States Bowling Congress) and I am pretty sure they might spend some of my membership fee on crap I don’t want. I am a AAA member and I never read the stupid magazine they send me. I spend thousands of dollars a year on gas for my car - you think I like everyone who gets their hands on their percentage of what I pay at the pump and endorse what they do?
Either enough people want or need things that it makes sense you help pay for them (like schools get funds from tax even from people without kids who as kids themselves only went to private schools) or if nobody wants them, you can vote/voice your opposition to those things.
Some of those things I am not forced to get but some (taxes, insurance for my car and house) I am. To say “unions are bad because some of my dues go to some things I don’t agree with” is kind of silly to say because that is the case in many situation.
I didn’t say you should love everything about your union. But you don’t hate it, do you? You don’t want to abolish it, right?
Sometimes, yes. Just like with a corporation, or any other institution.