• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where does the rights hatred of unions come from?????????[W:536]

faithful_servant said:
It's not a matter of supporting corporations over workers, it's matter of not supporting corrupt organizations that artificially inflate wages, making us less competitive in the int'l market and driving jobs overseas. It's hating the fact that unions buy and sell politicians every day of the week. It's hating the extortion that gets used to inflate wages that has destroyed businesses. It's hating the unions support of mediocrity.

It has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING in your post. You didn't get one single point right as it relates to why we don't like unions. What you posted was simply projection and trying to create an argument that you thought that you could win by setting the parameters of the discussion so that you didn't have to think. An honest attempt at what you were trying (and failing miserably to do) would have been to ask the simple question "Why don't conservatives like unions?" and avoid all the projection.
Click to expand...
You are kidding I hope , all those things you say goes 10 times more for business. If you own a business and want it all , then minimum wage seems Ok to you, but if your a worker. Your wage is set by unions whether your in one or not. Were in the hell do you think this massive increase in profit should go to. You do know the average executive in this country makes 17 million a year. The average single worker in this country makes less the $25,000.00 a year , that's the average including billionaire wages also. that means the average executive makes 700 times more then their workers. I mean seriously do you really think you have a case.
 
Absentglare said:
Ignorance of how the world around them operates and a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of economics.
Click to expand...
Are you pointing out this for business or workers, so when the biggest employer in the U.S. Wall-mart pays so little that They are also the biggest recipient of welfare and food stamps in the country, now just for the hell of of it tell me why I should have to supply the money needed as a tax payer so wal-mart can make a massive profit. Now would that be the understanding of economics that your talking about.
 
"Where does the rights hatred of unions come from?????????"

Their support of democrats. Did we really have to explain that to you?
 
It depends on the union. Public sector unions should not exist at all. Large-scale private sector unions should not exist because they have no interest in individual job sites, they care about their industry, not the people in it. Some unions are so large that they stop anyone who isn't a member of their union from working in the field at all. That should never happen. I have no problem with individual businesses unionizing because the workers are directly invested in the health of the business.
 
Socrates1 said:
I enjoyed being in a union BUT if you do your job and come to work when scheduled and on time , there is little need for a union . Secondly we see the lazy , the druggies , the whiners , taking up all the unions time and money . Third most unions take care of those that are extremely loyal to them in EVERY election and if they THINK you may have voted for someone other than them watch out !!! Fourth every contract there are hidden benefits for top union officials and more and more unions are for two and three tier hiring . Fifth seniority trumps everything and that's what ruins most profitable businesses .
Click to expand...
Most of that stuff is who cares to me, when I was young I was in three different unions. Labor union, I drove truck and I operated heavy equipment. I made enough to live on and then some. If there wasn't a union I would have made crap. Which isn't right. It's seasonal in Minnesota and it hard work. Again anything you can find derogatory about unions has bee done 10 fold by business, without regulation big business would eat our children.. The idea that the market sets wages has taken a break. Adam Smith in 1776 in his Book "Wealth of nation" said there are times that the market doesn't set wages that business does. That's failed capitalism and that's what we have now.
 
soot said:
I have nothing against private sector unions.

I do, however, oppose public sector unions.

The reasons?

1.) Virtual monopoly

The nature of public sector employment, policing, firefighting, teaching, public works, etc, grants public workers a de facto monopoly over the particular service they provide.

If the police union, for instance, goes on strike all policing within a given jurisdiction can, theoretically, come to a complete halt.

Nobody should have that kind of collective power to cripple the voters.

2.) Collective bargaining

Setting wages for a particular government job should be the responsibility, and within the power, of the people that "we the people" have elected to do that job. "We the people" have not, so far as I'm aware, ever voted to allow union officials the power to collectively bargain for our public servants' wages. The same goes for collectively bargaining for public employees' work responsibilities or limits on what public employees are asked to do.

3.) Collusion

Given the above mentioned (unauthorized) power that unions wield, they can and do trade that power for votes. Politicians promise to increase wages and benefits and unions in turn promise to throw votes toward a particular party.

If union wage demands drive up the cost of a Ford Explorer I always have the option of buying from a Ford competitor.

But when it comes to government there is no competitor.

Public sector unions should be eliminated immediately and I will side with the government and the people in breaking the back of public sector unions whenever and wherever I see it happening.
Click to expand...
I think we have to get something straight here, Unions don't set wages, they sit down with who ever the head of the workplace is and come to a agreement. The unions hold the strike over the situations and the business place holds the lockout over this from the other side.
 
jbander said:
Are you pointing out this for business or workers, so when the biggest employer in the U.S. Wall-mart pays so little that They are also the biggest recipient of welfare and food stamps in the country, now just for the hell of of it tell me why I should have to supply the money needed as a tax payer so wal-mart can make a massive profit. Now would that be the understanding of economics that your talking about.
Click to expand...

When poor people get money, it goes back into the economy because they need money to do what they want. When more money is put back into the economy, there is more income to mobilize more resources like labor.

When there's more income for the market, when there are more real resources being utilized, the GDP grows more.

When we give money to people who are already rich (tax cuts or cash handouts, it makes no difference), we slow down our own economy so that those rich people can get more money without having to work for it.

When we give money to poor people, we speed up our economy because rich people have to provide goods and services to get their own income, they can't simply take more from the government like they've been doing for 40 years.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Not sure it really matters now.

Between the politics of dealing with unions, and trade agreements undermining private sector unions, and the fiscal impact concerns of public sector unions the issue has become a huge mess. It is not going to get any better, especially as private sector union levels continue to decline while public sector unions continue on another path.

Perhaps the larger concern that we face is if we agree that a middle class in any sense is an economic distortion, then perhaps Libertarians are on the right side of private sector unionization rights people have as an extension of freedom of association. It makes sense to leave the private sector for employers and employees to choose to bargain through a labor union or not, our problem though is the political will to undermine that effort speaks directly to at least the 4th and 3rd income quintile in a decreasing area of production and manufacturing. What remains is the lower 5th income quintile in the service industry especially and the public sector unions where funding for benefits ends up in the political spin machine.

Between Republicans and Democrats going back to before Bill Clinton, the damage to private sector unions is going to be painful to undo without real economic consequences across the board. To put those distortions back to levels we saw in prior generations will price too many people right out of the labor force.
Click to expand...
Ok your last sentence, that makes sense to you, I have to wonder on the other side .with executives making on average 17 million a year which is 10 times more than anywhere else in the world, at a time we are in a world market. They don't seem to be pricing themselves out of the market. Their income being almost 700 times more then their workers.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I think it came from a lot of strikes during the 70's over what most considered to be unreasonable demands, coupled with proof of rampant corruption with-in the unions and poor work with a lot of featherbedding. The union bosses very often where all about power and privilege for themselves, they were not orientated towards the men and women who did the work, which destroyed the brotherhood. Think about it, automakers for instance striking even though they were already making about triple the average american wage, and the cars they made were crap to boot, that was a lot to forgive.
Click to expand...
Again something that is done 10 times more by corporations,why the support for the corporate standard over the workers standard
 
jbander said:
Ok your last sentence, that makes sense to you, I have to wonder on the other side .with executives making on average 17 million a year which is 10 times more than anywhere else in the world, at a time we are in a world market. They don't seem to be pricing themselves out of the market. Their income being almost 700 times more then their workers.
Click to expand...

I'm mainly referring to the adversarial relationship between trade agreements driving labor rates down, and applicable unions who have opposing goals. Think the UAW vs. NAFTA, Mexico and the trade agreement for the most part won that battle.

That realization renders the executive pay rate debate as mute, the US labor market overall is not operating in a vacuum.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you're talking about the political right hating unions, it might be partially due to the fact that virtually every union donates to and funds Democrat candidates almost exclusively, with many union executive members using their positions to get into Democrat politics. Many union members, who happen to be Republicans, hate their own unions for the very same reason.
Click to expand...
Funny do you know where almost all politicians come from. I do , and I see no reason that some of them coming from unions is any different or done in any different ways then them coming from business.
 
jbander said:
I think we have to get something straight here, Unions don't set wages, they sit down with who ever the head of the workplace is and come to a agreement. The unions hold the strike over the situations and the business place holds the lockout over this from the other side.
Click to expand...

Not to mention in just about every single state public safety employees, firefighters and police are barred from striking....
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Hive mentality where individualism does not exist. It's almost cult-like.

A family member of mine belonged to a teacher's union. Barely 5 years in, he was only interested in job security at that point. A steady salary was more important than an increased one. What did his hive-mentality union do? They went on strike for higher wages. His interests were tossed to the wind in favor of the hive. He had to get a part-time job to survive. During the last presidential election, the cult leade...err...union bosses dictated who "the union" was going to vote for. Regardless of his individual leanings, "the union" was all that mattered. He eventually left the union, and refused to work with another. That hive mentality is nothing but a tool for extortion.

I wonder how many union members would better themselves, if they were allowed to negotiate their wages based on their skills? Then again...I wonder how many union members would utterly fail, by that same token.
Click to expand...
Hive mentality is that like the wealthy living in gated communities. The Idea that I can't be a individual because of union member ship while a business man can be, being in a business membership. Doesn't make sense does it.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Hive mentality where individualism does not exist. It's almost cult-like.

A family member of mine belonged to a teacher's union. Barely 5 years in, he was only interested in job security at that point. A steady salary was more important than an increased one. What did his hive-mentality union do? They went on strike for higher wages. His interests were tossed to the wind in favor of the hive. He had to get a part-time job to survive. During the last presidential election, the cult leade...err...union bosses dictated who "the union" was going to vote for. Regardless of his individual leanings, "the union" was all that mattered. He eventually left the union, and refused to work with another. That hive mentality is nothing but a tool for extortion.

I wonder how many union members would better themselves, if they were allowed to negotiate their wages based on their skills? Then again...I wonder how many union members would utterly fail, by that same token.
Click to expand...
Love the little shot at the end, just one problem we have the most productive worker in the world.
 
Socrates1 said:
I enjoyed being in a union BUT if you do your job and come to work when scheduled and on time , there is little need for a union . Secondly we see the lazy , the druggies , the whiners , taking up all the unions time and money . Third most unions take care of those that are extremely loyal to them in EVERY election and if they THINK you may have voted for someone other than them watch out !!! Fourth every contract there are hidden benefits for top union officials and more and more unions are for two and three tier hiring . Fifth seniority trumps everything and that's what ruins most profitable businesses .
Click to expand...

On the bolded my grandfather married a teacher who was part of the teachers union. they told here to vote for john kerry or she would be fired and barred from ever working a teacher job. She supported kerry but voted for bush just to spite them, told them about it, and no one did anything because she had the conversation recorded.

Some unions are good, but too many run like the mafia to protect their interests rather than the interests of those they are supposed to represent.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not to mention in just about every single state public safety employees, firefighters and police are barred from striking....
Click to expand...

They sure are, which is why patco was disbanded.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you're talking about the political right hating unions, it might be partially due to the fact that virtually every union donates to and funds Democrat candidates almost exclusively, with many union executive members using their positions to get into Democrat politics. Many union members, who happen to be Republicans, hate their own unions for the very same reason.
Click to expand...
Just for interest why would unions and their workers support a 2016 conservative when the fact is that they only exist for 1% of the population and if half this country is conservatives the 49% would be working against themselves. are you part of the 49% or the 1%
 
tres borrachos said:
I have a cousin who's a steamfitter. Union guy for 30 years. He supported McCain & Romney, and caught so much **** for it that he kept getting into fights. He said his union is insufferably intolerant of its members who don't support the Democratic nominee.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why people support any 2016 conservative either.
 
Thrilla said:
well, i'm no righty, but i absolutely abhor public sector unions.... they should be banned outright.

i'm fine with private sector unions.. but i realize they won't get much support from the right until they stop being the finance wing of the Democratic party.

even if rank and file republicans agree on union issues, politicians hold views on a myriad of other issues.... so you're basically asking these rank and file folks to not only vote for people they disagree with, but also hand over money to them.

in additionally, labors concern aren't the only concerns at play in the universe.... reasonable people understand business/management have valid concern/interests as well.... unions don't care at all about those concerns, .. only their own.
unions haven't quote figured out that labor and management is a symbiotic relationship...they are stuck in the 17 century adversarial mindset.
if they grow up and join the modern world, they might make a comeback... if they stick to their same old guns, they will not ... they will die out, except in the public sector, where their very existence depends on a conflict of interest.

the best thing unions could do to gain wide appeal is to get out of bed with the Democratic party.... because, right now, they are inseparable... they are one in the same.... this hurts them far more than it helps.
Click to expand...
Just swap the words big business for every time you wrote union and then you'll have some clarity. it's simple If you want a capital system that directs all the increased wealth of this rich country into the hands of the few as it dose no(by the way do you want to try to argue against that point) If that's your choice fine. You have the right to do that but then your not supporting your best interest. unless you are part of the minute few that have gained all the increased wealth of this country over the last 30 years. There is one thing who's time has come again and that is the need for unions. Unless you can figure out another way that distributes the wealth different then the shamefull way it is now.
 
TobyOne said:
Private unions can be successful. Collective bargaining is a right that should be guaranteed. They're writing their own tombstone, however. If you skew the market so that you're getting paid above market wages your jobs will eventually go away. You can ask your friendly automated checkout scanner at your supermarket. He never complains, never takes breaks and you don't have to put his kids through college.

As someone stated about, the downsize is their outright purchase of politicians. Its interesting to see those who bitch and moan about corporate political contributions but seem to support union contributions because "Corporations bad, unions good. Derp". They're both monied interests that can control politicians. Ask California about union political power and its effect on city budgets.
Click to expand...
Corporations in the capitalism we have right now are bad , bad for the country and the population. You can support the worker or the business. Right now all the support and massive increase in income is going to business. Can't argue. I support the worker who has gained nothing in 30 years , it seems you support the corporations that at this time is getting all of the increase, fine if that is what you want and are willing to gamble with this countries future with massive disparity of income that has come about over those 30 years.
 
Fearandloathing said:
The Iron workers in BC have always had a stellar reputation. I see the spaceship they crafted for Expo 86 a couple of times a week. Were all unions like them no one would have a problem. My issue is the public sector unions who hold the public hostage in their wage demands.

I was a member of union only once, an independent run by idiots. In 86 times were tough, and they went on strike over 2%, which became 1% after ten weeks of strike, and senior guys like me 'red circled', wages frozen until the new schedule catches up. The television station saved ten weeks worth of wages and lost the strong viewership we had built, the union members lost ten weeks wages. The station never recovered, tanked in the ratings and the top people, red circled, all got better jobs.

Considering I had worked over 20 years with nothing but a handshake, I found the union experience disappointing
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous unions don't set wages ,they don't force anyone anymore then business or government workers force the issue with the strike on one side and the lockout on the other side, Your suggesting that business and government can't find people to sit down with unions and come up with a agreed apon wage. That is how every wage increase comes about. Your point that it's holding the public hostage is ridiculous. They come to a number as far as wages are concerned as a joint agreement.
 
fmw said:
"Where does the rights hatred of unions come from?????????"

Their support of democrats. Did we really have to explain that to you?
Click to expand...
So we are then as democrats suppose to hate anyone who supports conservative candidates. From the weak mind of the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom