• 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!

Are Unions Still Viable?

Are Unions Still Viable?


  • Total voters
    43
I think it's worthy to note that 43 states have laws on the books that stipulate workers may not be retaliated against for performing an action that complies with public policy. ( at will employment exemption laws)

...such as, calling the OSHA hotline.
 
i'm hestitent to claim any periods of economic prosperity as being the "greatest"( each period is a little different, and it all depends on the metrics employed to rank each of them)... but as a matter of opinion, i'd probably say 82' to 99'..and there is an argument for 20' to 29' being pretty badass as well.

if we go back just beyond a century, the period which you admittedly despise.. the gilded age.. surpasses( by most metrics) all periods of economic prosperity before and since.

First, we were talking about the 20th century and the gilded age was in the 19th.

Second, I believe the growth that occurred in the Fifties eclipsed the previous five decades of the first half of the century.

Economy in The 1950s

The economy overall grew by 37% during the 1950s. At the end of the decade, the median American family had 30% more purchasing power than at the beginning. Inflation, which had wreaked havoc on the economy immediately after World War II, was minimal, in part because of Eisenhower's persistent efforts to balance the federal budget. Except for a mild recession in 1954 and a more serious one in 1958, unemployment remained low, bottoming at less than 4.5% in the middle of the decade.


I would agree with you that there were some boom years during the later 80's and early 90's as well, perhaps even more than the Fifties and early Sixties. I would have to see the data. But I would hope that you could see those two as the best of the century.
 
I figured you were... I just felt like pointing out that the union talking point wasn't accurate.

personally, i'm a big fan of at-will employment law... and the benefits it provides.

Uh, that's not a talking point: it's a fact. And I see no benefit to at will firing.
 
First, we were talking about the 20th century and the gilded age was in the 19th.

Second, I believe the growth that occurred in the Fifties eclipsed the previous five decades of the first half of the century.

Economy in The 1950s




I would agree with you that there were some boom years during the later 80's and early 90's as well, perhaps even more than the Fifties and early Sixties. I would have to see the data. But I would hope that you could see those two as the best of the century.

in the grand scheme, finding out which period was the "greatest" doesn't matter much..I think we both acknowledge that different periods of economic growth did , in fact, exist... 20's, 50's, 60's, 80's, and 90's...all periods of growth.

I'm not sure how you attribute the economic growth of the 50' 60's , though
 
You are simply anti-union.

no. I am anti public union, because I think that when government becomes its' own special interest, it threatens responsible self governance in a manner that has few realistic checks.

Unions themselves I think are merely usually destructive, which simply means that they should be subjected (like everything else) to the competition of the marketplace. Where Unions are beneficial, they will survive and thrive. Where they are not, they won't.

History proves your assumption are false. Look at the greatest period of prosperity in the last century in America - the Fifties and Sixties - and they are also the period of highest percentage of union membership. Your allegations about history and unions are simply false and not supported.

:lol: yeah. All you have to do is destroy the rest of the worlds' industrial base and you, too, can have great manufacturing growth. :lol:

however, in reality, you are incorrect, the 50s and 60s as a "golden era" are largely the result of the fact that they were measured against the previous two decades, which had been marked by Depression and War. Moving from 0 to 1 is a much larger percentage gain than moving from 20 to 30. Furthermore, union membership peaked in 1954; meaning that 75% of the era you have identified as a time of economic growth was occurring in a period of union decline.

As to foreign outsourcing and not impacting union states - I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that neither do you since you simply threw a few words out there and did not develop the thought.

you argued that the effects of unions are different now because of our increasingly globalized economy - apparently forgetting that the economic losses associated with the impacts of unions have been exacerbated as the economy has globalized. There is a reason why Detroit is a failed city and Toyota is building factories across the South.
 
Last edited:
cpwill wrote
There is a reason why Detroit is a failed city and Toyota is building factories across the South.

It's not just Toyota, several foreign car companies have opened plants across the South

Washington Independent
Alabama, for example, secured construction of a Mercedes-Benz plant in 1993 by offering $253 million in state and local tax breaks, worker training and land improvement. For Honda, the state’s sweetener surrounding a 1999 deal to build a mini-van plant was $158 million in similar perks, adding $90 million in enticements when the company expanded the plant three years later. A 2001 deal with Toyota left the company with $29 million in taxpayer gifts.

Alabama is hardly alone. Corker’s Tennessee recently lured Volkswagen to build a manufacturing plant in Chattanooga, offering the German automaker tax breaks, training and land preparation that could total $577 million. In 2005, the state inspired Nissan to relocate its headquarters from southern California by offering $197 million in incentives, including $20 million in utility savings.

In 1992, South Carolina snagged a BMW plant for $150 million in giveaways. In Mississippi in 2003, Nissan was lured with $363 million. In Georgia, a still-under-construction Kia plant received breaks estimated to be $415 million.

Some interesting facts to be found in this article about the Mercedes plant in Alabama
Ten years after Mercedes, Alabama town still pans for gold

Recruiters put together a $253 million incentive package to attract an already profitable automaker. Winning the first Mercedes-Benz plant in the United States, the state got what it wanted: an image boost and thousands of high-paying jobs.

Was it worth it? Nearly a decade later, it's still difficult to tell.
 
cpwill said:
no. I am anti public union, because I think that when government becomes its' own special interest, it threatens responsible self governance in a manner that has few realistic checks.

Unions themselves I think are merely usually destructive, which simply means that they should be subjected (like everything else) to the competition of the marketplace. Where Unions are beneficial, they will survive and thrive. Where they are not, they won't.

Government isn't a single entity, for example government workers (like teachers or cops) don't make laws and are thus not their own special interest, they don't set their own pay and so on.

Also banning public union can be seen as a market distortion, since it gives the public sector a competative advantage over the private sector especially when they are competing.

Also when you say beneficial, beneficial to whome ... your assuming the market chooses outcomes which are beneficial for everyone, it doesn't, it only measures benefit by profit, which ignores all sorts of externalities or internal contradictions.

cpwill said:
yeah. All you have to do is destroy the rest of the worlds' industrial base and you, too, can have great manufacturing growth.

however, in reality, you are incorrect, the 50s and 60s as a "golden era" are largely the result of the fact that they were measured against the previous two decades, which had been marked by Depression and War. Moving from 0 to 1 is a much larger percentage gain than moving from 20 to 30. Furthermore, union membership peaked in 1954; meaning that 75% of the era you have identified as a time of economic growth was occurring in a period of union decline.

yeah, but the countries that were destroyed also grew a LOT under social democratic governments with extremely strong labor and very weak capitalists.

They are the godlen era, compared to the previous two decades and the later decades ...

cpwill said:
you argued that the effects of unions are different now because of our increasingly globalized economy - apparently forgetting that the economic losses associated with the impacts of unions have been exacerbated as the economy has globalized. There is a reason why Detroit is a failed city and Toyota is building factories across the South.

If that were true then the German automotive industry would be in the ****ter since Unions in Germany are strong than American Unions ever were.
 
I recently attended a course where I was instructed on the inspection of OSHA code as well as Laser, Radiation, small arms firing range, etc safety. I started thinking while I was subjected to death by Power Point "With all of these OSHA codes, minimum wage, workman's comp laws, etc. What do union's do?" Therein lies the question. What DO unions do? OSHA code, if you are not familiar with it, is the epitomy of ridiculous regulations imposed by the Federal gov't. Some of it is good, I will admit, but dictating how many toilets I have to have on a work site is going a little far. Minimum wage is something we are all familiar with. Workman's Comp is very complicated however, it is required in all states depending upon the states regulations. Unions don't have to negotiate safer working environments, the Federal gov't does that already. They don't have to negotiate salary, the Federal gov't does that already. They don't have to make businesses compensate injured employees, the state governments does that already. What I see of unions is almost always bad. They demand pay that is more than the market rate. They demand benefits that are more than the market rate. They demand work conditions that are more than OSHA code requires. Unions, IMO, were needed in the early industrialization of the US. Now, they are nothing more than an irritant. Am I wrong?
:arrow:***Please, keep the debate civil. Just because someone holds a different opinion than you doesn't mean they are a lesser form of human than you.***

They are less needed and powerful as a few decades ago but I wouldn't say they're useless. Mixed fealings about them too, can be good, can be bad.
 
I chose "sometimes", but on the closer side to "no".

Places like China are where unions are needed most.
 
I chose "sometimes", but on the closer side to "no".

Places like China are where unions are needed most.

China also doesnt' have OSHA, that's why. To be honest, if I HAD to choose on this particular subject, I'd take gov't regulation (OSHA, Workman's Comp, etc) over unions any day of the week. A union's entire business nowadays is what they can get the worker. Whether it be longer breaks, better benefits, a steeper pay increase scale, etc. If they are not getting workers more and more stuff, they go away. They have ceased to look out for the worker as much as they are now a simple for profit organization that seeks to please a "customer". In this case, pleasing is more of the aforementioned items and the customer being union members. Worker safety and welfare went out the window a long time ago.
 
LOL - no reason for unions in USA?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

But I will tell you to compare USA labor law with German labor law..........

Al l german jobs have 20 days paid vacation......ALL of them.

Plus there is the fact you are nothing but a welfare leech (military worker) and are required to work at all hours for no additional pay......LOL.
Or can you show us all Over Time in the UCMJ LMAO!!!!!

Some reading for you so you learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County_War
 
Last edited:
LOL - no reason for unions in USA?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

But I will tell you to compare USA labor law with German labor law..........

Al l german jobs have 20 days paid vacation......ALL of them.

Plus there is the fact you are nothing but a welfare leech (military worker) and are required to work at all hours for no additional pay......LOL.
Or can you show us all Over Time in the UCMJ LMAO!!!!!

Some reading for you so you learn something.

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harlan County War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's see, should I fall for the noob trap and seriously respond to this?.........Nah. I won't go down that dark road. If I do, you would probably be to stupid to figure out what that little notification tab at the top of the webpage does anyway and not respond. You already proved your lack the knowledge of the webpage to hit the "Reply With Quote" button so I would know you even posted this rabble. If I hadn't checked the thread, I would have never seen your "welfare leech" verbal diarhea. As it is, your statement makes no sense (what does the UCMJ have to do with anything) and I won't enteratain honest debate with you.
 
Sometimes unions are viable. In the private sector, union demands are somewhat controlled by the consumer base for the product/service. When the cost of union demands raises the price of private goods and services to the point of being non-competitive, the company can no longer earn a profit, the company closes and everyone looses.

Public unions are a different matter. When public unions demand raises the cost of public services, taxpayers are forced to fund those services through tax hikes over which they have no control. There is no balance where the state, county, municipality can disintegrate, leaving everyone out of a job. They just raise taxes, and taxpayers have no option to take their purchasing dollars to lower-priced competition.

Only 24 states still have public unions fleecing taxpayers who have no power, no choice, no options when faced with escalating costs of public employee demands. The other 26 states have comprehensive civil service legislation in place that provides fair salary/benefit packages without robbing taxpayers to capitulate to unaffordable demands. In my opinion, all states should have such civil service legislation and public unions should be prohibited.

I've been at the negotiating table with public employee unions. They do not give a damn about increasing taxes or even loosing public jobs as long as they get the benefits they want for seniority-protected members, starting with the negotiating committee. Legislatures and councils will raise taxes without a peep, as long as they are coerced that public safety personnel will picket threatening that residents will be mugged in the streets, their homes will be allowed to burn down, streets will turn into war zones if their demands are not met.

Threats and coercion to force their hands into taxpayer pockets without any oversight or accountability make public unions nothing more than a group of legalized thugs. A pox on them all.
 
Let's see, should I fall for the noob trap and seriously respond to this?.........Nah. I won't go down that dark road. If I do, you would probably be to stupid to figure out what that little notification tab at the top of the webpage does anyway and not respond. You already proved your lack the knowledge of the webpage to hit the "Reply With Quote" button so I would know you even posted this rabble. If I hadn't checked the thread, I would have never seen your "welfare leech" verbal diarhea. As it is, your statement makes no sense (what does the UCMJ have to do with anything) and I won't enteratain honest debate with you.

The UCMJ is your work rules.......

And here is why unions are needed in USA.


Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States


none of which military "workers" have.......and know nothing about. ( 9 years USAR so I know military LOL)
 
I voted no...........Unions were a good thing in the nineteen thirties but outllived their usefullness and no one should be forced to join one.
 
The UCMJ is your work rules.......
Actually, the UCMJ are punitive rules and have nothing to do with "work rules" as you define them. We have no work rules. If I have to work 12 hours to get a job done, guess what, I work them. If I need someone to not eat lunch so we can get a job done, guess what, he doesn't eat and neither do I. If my work calls me at 1am and needs me in, guess what, I'm going in. In addition, I see that you were Army Reserve to which I would reply HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA if you think that means you know ANYTHING about military life. Trust me, I know much more about the reserve than you know about active. I am on an Inspector Instructor staff for a Marine Reserve unit now and work with a nearby Army Reserve unit sometimes. The Marine Corps does their reserve in a much more in depth manner than any other service and our guys don't have a clue about active duty either. So if they don't, I certainly know that you don't. .
And here is why unions are needed in USA.
Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States


none of which military "workers" have.......and know nothing about. ( 9 years USAR so I know military LOL)
You're right, we don't have any of this crap. I could imagine how unproductive we would be with a lot of it. The DOD already burns through money at the cyclic rate, we shouldn't have unproductive military members as well. I could imagine a grunt on patrol taking his mandatory 15 minute union break halfway through. Or worse yet, having to plan operations around crap like that. Also, the majority of the stuff you named is legislation or departments of the federal gov't, not things that any union bargained with any company about.
 
I just wanted to add that most anti-union people have a greater responsibility for propping up the middle class that unions themselves do. Henry Ford for instance doubled the wages of his workers. Hitler gave minimum wages and Germany prospered. I honestly don't think unions have done anything the free market wouldn't have done itself. Instead all they do is syphon money from workers and likely give them to organized crime...
 
In the fascist US Corpocracy only the extremley rich and corrupt are permitted to form Unions

Ordinary workers are permitted to function as slaves and survive on ever shrinking wages and increasingly dangerous and toxic work envionments

According to Dostoevsky, the level of humanity, freedom and civility present in a society is reflected by the state of the prison system and its prisoners. And the US has the largest prisoner population in the world (making up about 28% of the worlds prisoners - almost all corporatised profit making prisons that leach of the state for funds)

The strength of grass roots Unionism is also a direct reflection of the health of the democratic process within a society - and in the USA the state of Unionism amongst ordinary workers is all but crushed.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. The USA is a brutal fascist Corpocratic Oligarchy where not only wealth and power is concentrated in a few hands, but the remaining citizenry has become nothing more than consuming, obedient slaves.

We witnessed what happened in the last Global financial crisis - the criminal elite who caused the crises were bailed out AGAIN by the masses, the tax payer, the middle classes. They are now EVEN richer - thats how the corrupt corpocratic regime works

The US flag has been altered - and the AMerican people are told to look elsewhere for scapegoats and solutions

fascism_is_the_american_dream.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom