You might want to amend your understanding of this part of your argument, as it is erroneous.
"The" motive? I'm sure some have that motive, others have a motive to fill the spot with the absolute best candidate within a price range of $______ to $______. Unions seek to insulate their members from having to compete on any grounds with others who could fill that job and do it better and/or cheaper.Your last part about competing in terms of wages and/or job performance is nonsense. The motive is to fill a spot with the cheapest price available.
Unions have a motive to retain all member teachers, good, bad or terrible, doing all they can to prevent even seriously unfit teachers from being ultimately forced out of the profession. How is that good for students that unfit teachers would be so strongly defended and kept in the profession?The motive should be to retain good teachers not chase them away.
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 10-14-14 at 12:02 AM.
"The knowledge and prudence of the poor themselves, are absolutely the only means by which any general and permanent improvement in their condition can be effected." - Thomas Malthus
actually it makes perfect sense.That – makes no sense. Can you do that again?
yeah and i know non-union people that retired earlier what is your point exactly? i know union guys that retire later along with non-union guys. who cares if you retired at 50.Again: how can a union make it worse for you in the long run? I retired at 50 because of my union. And having no problem with unions is a good thing. I have no problem with non union shops: if that’s what they want, good for them. I have problems with unfair tactics like right to work: eventually, and as we have seen over the years as unions have declined, the non union shop has no ability whatsoever to better their condition, avoid discrimination politics in the workplace or plan a future that they can really depend on, as has been seen by several collapses of 401k plans over the years: my ex-mother in law lost everything when her airline employer went through a collapse.
unions have declined because of themselves. companies have improved working conditions and other things to the point that people feel a union won't get them anything.
you are wrong. people have the right to work and not have to join a union. the union doesn't own the job the company does.
sure they do. if working conditions violate laws they can file legal disputes and other measure to improve working conditions. if the working conditions are that bad then they leave for some where better. maybe she should have invested in something other than the airline she worked for. i don't own company stock in my company. i have it diversely invested over multiple sectors so that type of thing doesn't happen.
tell that to the union issue in this thread. yes the union does create hostile work enviroments. posting legit workers names and where they work is intimidation at least.And “unions” don’t create a hostile working environment: employees create their own conditions of cohesion. And nobody can guarantee anything, so I don’t know what your point is there.
there is a group of ironworkers i think in PA that are currently under arrest along with their union boss for all sorts of charges from threats to vandalism intimidation etc ...
10 leaders of Ironworkers Local 401 charged in racketeering indictment - Philly.com
they had a good acronym THUGS.
hmm according to you unions don't do this WRONG.
these places offered the going rate of labor. more so they wanted to offer their workers enough incentive so as to not unionize.As far as what non union auto workers are making; again you missed the side of the barn with the cannon you’re holding: do you think that the UAW and other unions had just a little bit to do with that?
which they have been successful with.
if they did unionize they would lose money not gain anything.