• 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 .
The overwhelming majority do and for those that don't, there are legal means for reporting them for fine or imprisonment. A union cannot achieve anything in that regard that the individual employees cannot do on their own.

As for the second part, where did you ever get that stupid idea? Of course the employees are not equal to their employers. The employer, and I'm speaking specifically of small business owners who start companies from scratch, have all the risk in ensuring that the business is successful, they have put in their time, money and effort to something that, for the majority of small businesses, fail in the first year. To have that be successful, to be able to employ other people, to produce things that are valuable to the public, they certainly deserve a bigger portion of the reward based on the bigger portion of the risk they took.

What is beyond ridiculous is that you believe otherwise.

Most "small" businesses don't even have unionization because there aren't enough employees.

I don't know what you are talking about with the lawyer. Who pays for a lawyer for you if you are wrongfully terminated, and you don't make much money to begin with so what you have, you have to save to survive on and can't afford to pay a lawyer yourself. Don't even say that lawyers will take it pro bono, they usually only will do that if there is going to be a big payday for them.

Also, it's your word against their's a lot of times, and THEY are not always telling the truth either.
 
Define "wrongly". If they were discriminated against, say for their race or gender, there are certainly avenues that they can pursue that cost nothing, plus there are plenty of groups out there that will take the case pro bono if it's sufficiently grievous. Yes though, he's out of a job. Welcome to life.

But you turn around and take a union shop, especially when it's a big national union that has no stake in the health of the individual shop, which pushes for absurd wages and benefits, to the point that the company can not expand or improve or stay competitive, and in fact, goes out of business altogether. Then, you're absolutely wrong, the employer can claim all the same things because not only do they no longer have a job, they've probably lost their homes and all the things they mortgaged to the hilt to start the company in the first place.

There are all kinds of things that could define "wrongly." Your employer can give ANY reason for terminating employment.
 
There are all kinds of things that could define "wrongly." Your employer can give ANY reason for terminating employment.

No, define your terms. Wrongful termination only applies to certain specific legal applications. Just because you don't like being terminated doesn't make it wrongful.

Nobody owes you a job.
 
No, define your terms. Wrongful termination only applies to certain specific legal applications. Just because you don't like being terminated doesn't make it wrongful.

Nobody owes you a job.

Nobody owes you a job, but why should they be able to terminate you because they want to hire their cousin? IMO, employees deserve SOME kind of job security, if they're good employees of course, but that's not always how it works. You want to talk about greedy? Take a good hard look at a lot of general contractors in the construction business.
 
Nobody owes you a job, but why should they be able to terminate you because they want to hire their cousin?

Because it's their business and they can do what they want, within the scope of the law?

IMO, employees deserve SOME kind of job security, if they're good employees of course, but that's not always how it works. You want to talk about greedy? Take a good hard look at a lot of general contractors in the construction business.

You're welcome to your opinion, too bad it has no basis in fact.
 
As of January 3, 2013, I am officially retired from the Department of Defense. I organized a union for all the technicians in my command to combat Bush's National Security Personnel System. I later was appointed Union Steward. I largely did not follow the leftist political leanings of the AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees), but I kept my mouth shut on political matters because I needed the AFGE's support. You know the old phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" I'm glad I'm no longer affiliated. I'm tired of hiding what I really thought over the years.
 
Nobody owes you a job, but why should they be able to terminate you because they want to hire their cousin?

My first job teaching public school, my contract was not renewed because the principal's nephew needed a job. teacher's union didn't do squat to help me. :shrug:
 
Because it's their business and they can do what they want, within the scope of the law
Workers can organize for the exact same reasons. It's their labor so they can do what they want within the scope of the law.
 
Nobody owes you a job, but why should they be able to terminate you because they want to hire their cousin?

because the job belongs to them. Nobody owes you a car, but someone who loans you one has the right to take it back for whatever reason they like, absent a contract.

Or, if that doesn't really do it for you, flip the question:

employers (as many have noted here) depend on their employees just as much as employees depend on employers. Why should employees be able to quit because they want to go work for their cousin?
 
There are all kinds of things that could define "wrongly." Your employer can give ANY reason for terminating employment.


what reasons can you give for terminating your employment?
 
Actually the union model is based around the old Aesop's Fable of the man teaching his son about the strength of a bundle of sticks.

Yeah. So are drug cartels. Simply "because unions are powerful" isn't a really good argument in their favor.
 
Like Mo said, the same can be said of any company that isn't union-related.

I don't have the time for it right now, but Mo is incorrect. Business has been incredibly beneficial to mankind. Free Trade has done amazingly good things - lifted hundreds of millions out of soul-crushing poverty in the last couple of decades alone.

However, since it is built around competition, it is bad for those who use a method of organizing that is non-competitive. That is why non-unionized businesses are succeeding, while unionized businesses are failing.
 
Yeah. So are drug cartels. Simply "because unions are powerful" isn't a really good argument in their favor.

Boy did you miss the point of that. The point is the same as it was told by Aesop, an individual by themselves can be broken while in unity there is strength. And what you take from that is drug cartels. :roll: Amazing!!!!! :doh
 
Workers can organize for the exact same reasons. It's their labor so they can do what they want within the scope of the law.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, one of the things they seek to do is to stop the employer from exercising their freedom to hire who they want.
 
Absolutely. Unfortunately, one of the things they seek to do is to stop the employer from exercising their freedom to hire who they want.
Just as many employers try to stop any talk of unionizing and, quite often, fire the would-be organizers.
 
Just as many employers try to stop any talk of unionizing and, quite often, fire the would-be organizers.

Because unions are a pain in the ass, hell, I'd do the same thing. As a business owner, you are trading your labor for a paycheck. Both of us are free to end this relationship at any time. You don't get to blackmail me into paying you more, just because you can threaten to shut down my business at any time. Don't like what I pay you? Go find another job.

Try again.
 
Because unions are a pain in the ass, hell, I'd do the same thing. As a business owner, you are trading your labor for a paycheck. Both of us are free to end this relationship at any time. You don't get to blackmail me into paying you more, just because you can threaten to shut down my business at any time. Don't like what I pay you? Go find another job.

Try again.
Threatening to fire me if I refuse to take a pay cut, deal with poorer working conditions, or any other thing where you have failed to hold to our original agreement is also blackmail.

But, hey, if you're saying the business owners hold all the cards and make the rules of game besides then you've shown exactly why labor unions came into existence in the first place. Most things don't just pop up out of a vacuum. Poor employment practices forced a response by workers. I can't recall union talk getting any traction at a company where the employees are happy with their jobs. But start crapping on your employees and some will start flinging the poo back at you.
 
Boy did you miss the point of that. The point is the same as it was told by Aesop, an individual by themselves can be broken while in unity there is strength. And what you take from that is drug cartels. :roll: Amazing!!!!! :doh

Why do you think drug dealers organize and stick together in groups? Because they are all highly sociable people?
 
Threatening to fire me if I refuse to take a pay cut, deal with poorer working conditions, or any other thing where you have failed to hold to our original agreement is also blackmail.

Really? What is threatening to quit if you don't get a pay raise?
 
Anywho, on this topic, Unions continue to demonstrate their level of general usefulness and competitiveness:


Union Membership Falls to 70 Year Lows

...The nation's unions lost 400,000 members in 2012 as the percentage of U.S. workers represented by a labor union fell to 11.3 percent, its lowest level since the 1930s...

Michigan accounted for about 10 percent of the nation's loss of unionized workers as the Wolverine State fell to the seventh most-unionized state, from fifth in 2011.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the biggest hit was in public sector unions, where many states and cities have cut back on their unionized workforce.

Among public sector workers, 35.9 percent are in a union - down from 37.0 percent in 2011, as the public sector shed nearly 250,000 union workers.

The public sector union rate is more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers. In the private sector, 6.6 percent are unionized, down from 6.9 percent in 2011.

Union membership fell in 34 states....
 
Really? What is threatening to quit if you don't get a pay raise?
My post was a response to someone who already made that claim. You should follow more closely.
 
My post was a response to someone who already made that claim. You should follow more closely.

Yeah except I looked back and didn't see your response to the question. Is it blackmail if I go to my boss and say "hey, company X is going to pay be Y to go work for them... and if you can't beat it, that's what I'm going to go do" ?
 
A perfect example of what RabidAlpaca and I are talking about with business interference in government and it's effect on the economic landscape.

Nah. When government interferes in labor disputes it is overwhelmingly to tip the scales in favor of unions.
 
Yeah except I looked back and didn't see your response to the question. Is it blackmail if I go to my boss and say "hey, company X is going to pay be Y to go work for them... and if you can't beat it, that's what I'm going to go do" ?
I'm sure Cephus understood even if you didn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom