• 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 .
MaggieD said:
Not low on the reason for these states being Right-To-Work is their desire to attract more industry so they won't continue to be among the eight poorest states. Right-To-Work laws didn't make them poor. Lack of industry and infrastructure made them poor.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that most of the working class do not feel they should have to live in poverty to make their state competitive.
 
Never worked for a union. Never will.

This was a hard feat, being born and raised in Michigan. My dad worked in the shop for over 30 years, and I've seen what the union can do. I vowed to never be a part of it, and when possible, fight them with every fiber of my being.

Fortunately, unions were thankfully destroyed by the time I left the state. Good riddance.
 
Catawba said:
They have been right to work states for years, just as they have been poor for years.
Click to expand...

Yep, just as they have been more racial diverse for years...and less educated for years...and hense net Federal $ 'takers' for years...now get back in front of that plow!
 
Catawba said:
They have been right to work states for years, just as they have been poor for years.
Click to expand...

I see, so you sum up the economic woes for those states with "stupid idiots outlawed mandatory union membership"?. Tell me why you believe someone should be forced into a union against their will.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So by some kind of magic, when right to work was recently passed, the economies of those states suddenly tanked?
Click to expand...

My question is, how many of those poor people are employed at all? If they're not working, don't have the skills to get jobs, then what is having a union going to do for them? All of these states are in the deep south where education sucks donkey balls.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I see, so you sum up the economic woes for those states with "stupid idiots outlawed mandatory union membership"?. Tell me why you believe someone should be forced into a union against their will.
Click to expand...

Only a very small percentage of American workers belong to unions. To attempt to blame them for our economic woes is ludicrous for all of those aware of the numbers.


"The number of American workers in unions declined sharply last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday, with the percentage slipping to 11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html?_r=0
 
Catawba said:
Only a very small percentage of American workers belong to unions. To attempt to blame them for our economic woes is ludicrous for all of those aware of the numbers.


"The number of American workers in unions declined sharply last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday, with the percentage slipping to 11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
So why did you imply that right to work was responsible for making the states poor? And you didn't answer my question, why should someone be forced against their will to join a union?
 
EarlzP said:
Why do you find it necessary in this format to be insulting? Tell me what it does for you?
Click to expand...

How is it insulting? I have been in various industry markets for over 30 years. I have seen union after union break the plant they work in over and over and over. It is sickening.
 
Catawba said:
I think you will find that most of the working class do not feel they should have to live in poverty to make their state competitive.
Click to expand...

Doing everything possible to attract industry to their states can never be a bad thing. Without it? Nothing will change. Do you really think the answer to their myriad problems is their not being a Right-To-Work state? You see that as a solution??
 
His solution is to create a command economy where freedom is a pipe dream and business is forced at legal gunpoint to float everyone.

Essentially, he wants an authoritarian socialist nation.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But they didn't break the backs of unions. They just made it to where the individual could choose to join a union voluntarily or not join. If that breaks the union back because people don't want to be a part of the union then there is something wrong with the union itself. If they addressed that then maybe people would voluntarily sign up to be a part of the union, thereby making them strong again.

People will voluntarily join something that benefits them. If they think that its not going to benefit them then they won't join. Its as simple as that.
Click to expand...
No, they made it so that individuals who don't join a union but work at union jobs benefit from those that do pay union dues. Those people are called 'free loaders" and they cause resentment from those who fought for the wages and benefits that the freeloaders didn't earn or pay for.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So why did you imply that right to work was responsible for making the states poor? And you didn't answer my question, why should someone be forced against their will to join a union?
Click to expand...


Unions in the US are largely responsible for helping build a middle class, not to mention safer working conditions. No one forces anyone to join a union. They are free to work wherever they wish.

My experience has shown that America is strongest when it has a strong working class.
 
MaggieD said:
Doing everything possible to attract industry to their states can never be a bad thing. Without it? Nothing will change. Do you really think the answer to their myriad problems is their not being a Right-To-Work state? You see that as a solution??
Click to expand...

I am for doing whatever it takes to build a stronger working class. Unions are part of what builds a strong working class.
 
Catawba said:
I am for doing whatever it takes to build a stronger working class. Unions are part of what builds a strong working class.
Click to expand...

the only area where I can see unions continuing to exist are areas where foreign competition is not possible such as public service areas: the very areas where unions should not exist

economic reality is killing unions in manufacturing
 
Rocketman said:
How is it insulting? I have been in various industry markets for over 30 years. I have seen union after union break the plant they work in over and over and over. It is sickening.
Click to expand...

So you don't think calling union workers weak minded is an insult? Have you ever told any union worker face to face that they are weak minded, if not why would you do it in this format? Most of the union workers I have been associated with had to serve a 4 year apprenticeship.

How many jobs have you worked in?
 
Catawba said:
Unions in the US are largely responsible for helping build a middle class, not to mention safer working conditions. No one forces anyone to join a union. They are free to work wherever they wish.

My experience has shown that America is strongest when it has a strong working class.
Click to expand...

Yet you stated that a very small portion of citizens are in a union. Yet that small portion is responsible for holding up the middle class?

So you're pro-right to work right? You stated that it should be voluntary to be in a union.

Moot said:
No, they made it so that individuals who don't join a union but work at union jobs benefit from those that do pay union dues. Those people are called 'free loaders" and they cause resentment from those who fought for the wages and benefits that the freeloaders didn't earn or pay for.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "union job". A union can not simply take entire control over a company. Any position offered by an employer can be filled by someone who wants to join a union, or doesn't want to join a union.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh I see, so not voluntary at all then? **** me if I want to be a construction worker or some other unionized job right?
Click to expand...

Yes, why should I let people leach off the system, don't like it go somewhere else. It's same as if there is no jobs, move somewhere else with jobs.
 
0bserver92 said:
Yes, why should I let people leach off the system, don't like it go somewhere else. It's same as if there is no jobs, move somewhere else with jobs.
Click to expand...

Leach off what system? The free market employment system being strong armed by unions?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Leach off what system? The free market employment system being strong armed by unions?
Click to expand...

The benefits that the unions brought into the profession that non union workers will benefit form or will reduce benefits.
 
0bserver92 said:
The benefits that the unions brought into the profession that non union workers will benefit form or will reduce benefits.
Click to expand...

And that's a reason why everyone should be forced into a union or face unemployment? Unions are a great concept. They are however intended to be voluntary organizations that workers should want to join so that they may have more power to bargain with their employer. Instead what it's become is a corrupt organization that strong arms employees instead of employers. That is the reason why unions have waned so far in this country. Most people look at unions with disgust. Time to ask yourself why.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And that's a reason why everyone should be forced into a union or face unemployment? Unions are a great concept. They are however intended to be voluntary organizations that workers should want to join so that they may have more power to bargain with their employer. Instead what it's become is a corrupt organization that strong arms employees instead of employers. That is the reason why unions have waned so far in this country. Most people look at unions with disgust. Time to ask yourself why.
Click to expand...
No that's why if you don't like unions, find something else to do. The entire point of unions is power in numbers, a union has more power to negotiate with a company than a single person. Through collective bargaining unions have gained numerous benefits and they fight to keep those benefits. In a right to work situation the non-unionized workers feed off of the benefits that the unions bargained for, or the employer can now cut benefits and pay because there is no one to stop them.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
There is no such thing as a "union job". A union can not simply take entire control over a company. Any position offered by an employer can be filled by someone who wants to join a union, or doesn't want to join a union.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is such a thing as a "union job" and companies that negotiate with unions can only hire union labor. That is what is meant by a "union job" and a "union company".
 
Moot said:
No, they made it so that individuals who don't join a union but work at union jobs benefit from those that do pay union dues. Those people are called 'free loaders" and they cause resentment from those who fought for the wages and benefits that the freeloaders didn't earn or pay for.
Click to expand...

Now see this here is the delima. I thought that Unions were "For the Working Class!"? If this were actually true then it shouldn't matter whether non-union workers benefit from union negotiated benefits. Unions would want ALL workers to have the benefits that they help provide via negotiation. Not just the ones that pay for it. The fact that you call those people freeloaders however indicates that the Union Mantra of "For the Working Class!" simply isn't true. That all that the Union cares about is lining thier own pockets at the expense of everyone but themselves. Perhaps the Union Mantra should be "Only for the Working Class that Pays Us!"?

Now here is the other part of the delima. If companies truely want to screw the working people then they would only provide benefits to union members, not non-union members. As such there are no "freeloaders" as non-union members would not be benefiting from all those benefits that Unions go on strike for. Which totally nullifies your arguement about freeloaders.

So...which is it going to be? Are unions actually "For the Working Class"? In which case you don't care if non-union members get the benefits that Unions negotiate. Or do companies always try and screw over the working class and as such non-union workers don't get the benefits that unions negotiate? You can't have it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom