• 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!

How many here belong a union in the public or private sector? Why? or Why not?

How many here belong to a union?


  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
You can't reason with these people. They think we're trying to ban unions, which is ridiculous. Personally the only issue I have with it is that it can be made mandatory. People should certainly be able to associate with and pay who they please. They still have failed over and over and over again to give a real reason why something as awesome as they describe it is must be mandatory. Nothing says confidence in your ideals like making it compulsory.

Then there's always the "Well you can just go find another job in your completely unionized career field." BS.
The Japanese came in and set up auto assembly plants in America. Those workers are paid near union wages and benefits without there being a union. Why isn't there a union at those Japanese auto plants? Because it's not needed. Too bad other American companies can't learn that lesson.
 
You can't reason with these people. They think we're trying to ban unions, which is ridiculous.

Or enslave workers, or etc. etc. etc. ; ridiculous charges are thrown at you if you dare to have a problem with union leadership :roll:

frankly, it's surprising it took this long to reach for the language of racism. That's usually a bugaboo of choice when you want to try to delegitimize the opposition.

Personally the only issue I have with it is that it can be made mandatory. People should certainly be able to associate with and pay who they please. They still have failed over and over and over again to give a real reason why something as awesome as they describe it is must be mandatory. Nothing says confidence in your ideals like making it compulsory.

Bingo. Well put indeed.
 
Or enslave workers, or etc. etc. etc. ; ridiculous charges are thrown at you if you dare to have a problem with union leadership :roll:

frankly, it's surprising it took this long to reach for the language of racism. That's usually a bugaboo of choice when you want to try to delegitimize the opposition.
:lamo You can lead them to the wiki but you can't force them to read it. :lamo


I come from a different generation than you so don't mistake that phrase for some inane literal translation that you dreamed up to suit your needs. The comment had nothing to do with race and everything to do with your oh so obvious opinion of unions and their members.
 
Last edited:
NO clue. The board hiccuped about that time so I submitted again. (I guess that's why we're always told not to submit again when making CC transactions!) Oddly enough, the strip under that post shows "You and [ARG:2 UNDEFINED] like this." on my computer - but on my user page it comes up as me Liking it twice at the same time - very strange.

Here I was thinking I was special or something! :2razz:
 
The Japanese came in and set up auto assembly plants in America. Those workers are paid near union wages and benefits without there being a union.

That's interesting. Can you back it up?

GM says its total hourly labor costs are $69. Toyotas is $48

Why isn't there a union at those Japanese auto plants?

Because the Japanese wisely built in right to work states, and those workers prefer to have jobs, having seen what happened to the Rust Belt. Like Alpaca says, sometimes there is good reason for folks to unionize. Monopsony's, for example. But if there is good reason for it, you don't need to coerce it.



So can ya'll explain why, when given the chance to do so, so many workers rush to abandon the unions they'd been forced to join?
 
The Japanese came in and set up auto assembly plants in America. Those workers are paid near union wages and benefits without there being a union. Why isn't there a union at those Japanese auto plants? Because it's not needed. Too bad other American companies can't learn that lesson.
Are you suggesting that withou unions, those wages at Toyota and Honda would be lower? That's a pretty bold claim to make without providing a single scrap of reference to support it.

Also, I recall a time in the 80s, when those cara broke into our market...because they were so much cheaper than cars made in the US, without a sacrifice in quality. Then, we started building US cars in Mexico, and Japanese cars in the US. And last I checked, toyotas cost more than Chevys, and chevy has had fewer recalls in the last couple years, sans the issues with the Volt, the super car savior of the world. Go figure, eh?
 
Are you suggesting that withou unions, those wages at Toyota and Honda would be lower? That's a pretty bold claim to make without providing a single scrap of reference to support it.
Not necessarily. What I'm suggesting is that if workers were actually paid what they're worth to the company (instead of their market value) and treated like people (instead of being just a line on the ledger like sheet steel or brake pads) there would be no need for unions. Things like unions don't form in a vacuum, they form from a need in society. If there is no need then, eventually, the unions would fade away on their own.
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that withou unions, those wages at Toyota and Honda would be lower? That's a pretty bold claim to make without providing a single scrap of reference to support it.

I think so. Union wages make it so that other companies have to be competitive with their wages and benefits. That isn't so far fetched or hard to believe.

Also, I recall a time in the 80s, when those cara broke into our market...because they were so much cheaper than cars made in the US, without a sacrifice in quality. Then, we started building US cars in Mexico, and Japanese cars in the US. And last I checked, toyotas cost more than Chevys, and chevy has had fewer recalls in the last couple years, sans the issues with the Volt, the super car savior of the world. Go figure, eh?

I don't see what that has to do with the unions.
 
Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that if workers were actually paid what they're worth to the company (instead of their market value) and treated like people (instead of being just a line on the ledger like sheet steel or brake pads) there would be no need for unions. Things like unions don't form in a vacuum, they form from a need in society. If there is no need then, eventually, the unions would fade away on their own.

So why the comment? I mean, it read to me like you were saying that Japanese auto workers get paid what they do because, thanks to unions, other auto workers get paid that...

But now you've dropped another egg, lol. Are you now suggesting that WORKERS are seen as ANYTHING more than a potential resource to be exploited by the union? You realize that unions are businesses, for profit, right? You honestly think that union leadership sees their members as names, and numbers on a page, meaningless beyond the union income they represent?
 
I think so. Union wages make it so that other companies have to be competitive with their wages and benefits. That isn't so far fetched or hard to believe.
This is true and it's the reason unions tend to demand non-union workers pay some (usually less than member) union dues, because they also benefit from union negotiations. I've never seen an entity that has a pay scale for union members and one for non-union members. Everyone gets paid the same - what the union has negotiated.
 
This is true and it's the reason unions tend to demand non-union workers pay some (usually less than member) union dues, because they also benefit from union negotiations. I've never seen an entity that has a pay scale for union members and one for non-union members. Everyone gets paid the same - what the union has negotiated.

AKA prevailing wage. :)
 
AKA prevailing wage. :)

Hmmm.....


If 10 men in state A all earn $10 an hour

And 10 men in state B have seven who earn $13 an hour, but three who are unemployed (and therefore earn $0 an hour)


Which state has the higher average wage?
 
Hmmm.....


If 10 men in state A all earn $10 an hour

And 10 men in state B have seven who earn $13 an hour, but three who are unemployed (and therefore earn $0 an hour)


Which state has the higher average wage?

It's too early for silly word problems cpwill. I hate math! :lamo
 
I think so. Union wages make it so that other companies have to be competitive with their wages and benefits. That isn't so far fetched or hard to believe.



I don't see what that has to do with the unions.
On my iPhone, so can't parse this correctly...but anyway...

That IS a pretty far fetched idea to believe. It ignores a principle characteristic of unions...which is to say...in a union shop, it's join the union, or don't work there. It also ignores another principle...when an employer doesn't need new help...they don't hire new help. This makes getting employment at union shops next to impossible. Hard to fire folks in unions, regardless of their performance...and all the workers there are union, by force...so yeah, on average, not a lot of openings...and when they do come, they go to family members, or friends. For those outside that circle? Forget it. They have to get employment elsewhere, and if they build cars, that means the non union Toyota shops and such. And that's if the two shops are close to each other. I mean, to believe as you do, then you must also believe that these sAme workers are willing and able to relocate in order to get the union job, over the non.
 
On my iPhone, so can't parse this correctly...but anyway...

That IS a pretty far fetched idea to believe.

Obviously you don't know anything about a union job site then. :shrug:

It ignores a principle characteristic of unions...which is to say...in a union shop, it's join the union, or don't work there.

Wrong. You can still work there, but you have to pay union dues in MOST cases because you would benefit from any negotiations that the union made with the business.

It also ignores another principle...when an employer doesn't need new help...they don't hire new help.

Good Lord! :roll:

This makes getting employment at union shops next to impossible. Hard to fire folks in unions, regardless of their performance...and all the workers there are union, by force...so yeah, on average, not a lot of openings...and when they do come, they go to family members, or friends.

This is such bull crap. All you have to do is pay your initial membership fee, and anyone can be a member.

For those outside that circle? Forget it. They have to get employment elsewhere, and if they build cars, that means the non union Toyota shops and such. And that's if the two shops are close to each other. I mean, to believe as you do, then you must also believe that these sAme workers are willing and able to relocate in order to get the union job, over the non.

I find it hard to believe that you know what you're talking about here.
 
It's too early for silly word problems cpwill. I hate math! :lamo

:) sorry, that was a bit round-a-bout.

:) One state has 10 men making 10 dollars apiece - average of $10 an hour.

But the other state has two ways of counting. Either the 7 men working earn $13 for an average wage of $13 an hour, or only $91 is earned for the same 10 men as in State A who all want jobs, in which case the average wage is $9.10 an hour.

Depending on how you measure state B (our union state), it will have better or worse wages than State A (our right to work state).



We all want to make a decent living, and we want that for others to. Those are good instincts, and should be encouraged. Unfortunately, because of that, we tend to be willing to forget that labor exists on a supply/demand curve, and that when you increase the price of labor, you decrease demand for it.
 
And I brought up the history of Toyota/Honda/Nissan to make a salient point about the car market in the US, and why Hyundai is the new up and commer. Soon, they will be made in the US, if not already, and its just a matter of time before they, too, cost more than so called domestics to buy.

There's only one Chevy still being made entirely in the US, and that's the corvette. And the most important parts of that car? Built by non union members, lol.


And for the record, many Japanese cars made in the US ARE made by union workers.
 
So why the comment? I mean, it read to me like you were saying that Japanese auto workers get paid what they do because, thanks to unions, other auto workers get paid that...
I think in the auto industry unions do set a kind of pay scale, yes. But if non-union jobs continued to pay a reasonable wage there would be no need for the union. People don't form unions when they're happy with their jobs and their basic needs are being met. I've given up promotions and higher paying jobs because I didn't like the work I would be required to do and liked where I was - haven't you?

But now you've dropped another egg, lol. Are you now suggesting that WORKERS are seen as ANYTHING more than a potential resource to be exploited by the union? You realize that unions are businesses, for profit, right? You honestly think that union leadership sees their members as names, and numbers on a page, meaningless beyond the union income they represent?
Unions may be businesses but they're (more or less) owned by the members. Or are you saying you think business men own the unions and take all the profits? If so, I'd like to see evidence of that.
 
Last edited:
:) sorry, that was a bit round-a-bout.

:) One state has 10 men making 10 dollars apiece - average of $10 an hour.

But the other state has two ways of counting. Either the 7 men working earn $13 for an average wage of $13 an hour, or only $91 is earned for the same 10 men as in State A who all want jobs, in which case the average wage is $9.10 an hour.

Depending on how you measure state B (our union state), it will have better or worse wages than State A (our right to work state).



We all want to make a decent living, and we want that for others to. Those are good instincts, and should be encouraged. Unfortunately, because of that, we tend to be willing to forget that labor exists on a supply/demand curve, and that when you increase the price of labor, you decrease demand for it.

You're giving me a headache. :2razz:

Seriously, the union wages set a standard for others.
 
Round here, all the unions are closed shop. Join the union, or don't work there. And round here, as well, I imagine, as most everywhere else, unions have great employee retention. Closed shop or not. So, unless a company is forever growing, they are NOT hiring. Without more work, there's no need for more employees. And its hard to get rid of workers at union shops. But don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. Are most union workers young kids, or older workers who have been in the union a while?

And again, to think that union wages in bowling green, Kentucky have ANY effect on non union wages for the same basic jobs in Greenville, South Carolina...ignores completely economic reality.
 
You're giving me a headache. :2razz:

Seriously, the union wages set a standard for others.

Back that up with references, or a logically sound argument.

Do union wages affect the non union wages within the same job site or company? Certainly. But from one company to another? One state to another? Basic economics denies this, as does simple logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom