• 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 Labor and Trade Unions Still Necessary in Our Economy?

Are Labor and Trade Unions Still Necessary in Our Economy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 49 55.1%

  • No

    Votes: 31 34.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 10.1%
  • Total voters
    89
Destined for severe decline in the future of America. Generally speaking unions are becoming less and less working class white and more and more minority based. In political America that generally means dramatic decline in influence on all levels.

Also there are geographical phenomena at play. The Midwest, Northern unions are in decline because manufacturing is being permanently moved to the Southern US and given to lower class Hispanics, blacks, whites, others who aren't even legally allowed to unionize in those states because unions are illegal or near illegal as well as the expected pay is significantly lower in the South. That phenomena is unstoppable at this point. Midwest, Northern manufacturing is being permanently phased out. Soon it will be gone forever due to the above reality.


Union decline can basically be attributed to this phenomena:


-Strong white working class demographics = ability to pressure white middle + upper class to safeguard unions


-Weak white working class demographics + strong minority working class demographics = inability to influence white middle + upper class to safeguard unions = companies relocate to anti-union South + existing unions are gutted into irrelevance


American unions fate was completely reliant on strong white working class demographics and political influence. That has seriously waned and isn't likely to come back. Nor are the unions.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Personally I tend to believe that trade unions are probably too traditional to represent the needs of people in the changed economy and require a rejuvenation or remain a rather inefficient remnant of past glory, when the rackets could wield its power in the docks and slaughterhouses or Hoffa return the vote.
Click to expand...

A trade union is a union that requires you to go to school to learn a trade, through either or both, in class schooling or on the job apprenticeship. Pretty sure dock workers and slaughterhouse employees don't fit that description, but I could be wrong. I know as an Ironworker I am quite glad I have a union to represent me.
 
I don't see anyone else stepping up to protect the interests of workers. I do see a lot of companies doing their best to exploit workers. Seems to me like they're necessary.
 
Navy Pride said:
At one time Unions were useful but they have become corrective and just a tool of the democratic party and have outlived their usefulness.
Click to expand...
Just like Corporations have become a tool of the Goper party, which outlived it's usefulness a very long time ago..
If i didn't work in a union now i would be making about 3 bucks less an hour with fewer benefits, and some asshole could fire me because he doesn't like the color of my skin, or the type of clothing i wear, would i want that, HELL FUKKING NO...
 
US Conservative said:
One that does not change his statement of FACT. Unions are shills for the democrat party.

Im reminded of the guy who goes to the dentist and is told he has a cavity-to which he replies "yeah but they aren't ALL cavities". :doh
Click to expand...
And the Gopers are shills, and whores for corporations, always have been always will be...

And i like how all the right to work states have conveniently have made a strong presence in the redneck white ghetto south, which is the poorest part of the country oh yea, and the most amount of folks without health insurance, LOL, see a connection here...
 
faithful_servant said:
..and when the competition between the two companies comes down to one of them surviving and one of them closing it's doors, it will be the non-union shop that stays open and the union shop that closes.

My issue with unions is that too often they fail to recognize that what is best for the company is normally best for the employee. The industry I work has seen substantial contraction over the last decade or so and the survivors (like us) have generally been the non-union shops.
Click to expand...
This guy is smart he takes the Union gig, just like i did!! because without union representation they can fire you anytime they want without good reason or cause, so what difference does it make???

I'll have more job security with the union, at least if i go down, the fu@king company will go down with me..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Many people often claim that labor and trade unions are no longer needed, because "safety regulations, fair wages, days off, 8 hour work day, and child labor" have already been won. They claim because of this labor, and trade unions are no longer needed. My question is: Are Labor and Trade Unions Still Necessary in Our Economy?
Click to expand...

I don't like sweeping statements like "they are unnecessary." Some of them do good work. Unfortunately, many are just political organizations.
 
Yea and without unions, employers will ALWAYS take advantage of the weak, Wal.Mart ring a bell? poverty slave wages, working overtime, without correct compensation, unsafe working conditions, discrimination, abuse and harassment, firing without good cause, etc, and where is the employee supposed to go for protection without a union????

Would i want to work without union representatin?? F@ck No...
 
ARTHUR 1976 said:
And the Gopers are shills, and whores for corporations, always have been always will be...

And i like how all the right to work states have conveniently have made a strong presence in the redneck white ghetto south, which is the poorest part of the country oh yea, and the most amount of folks without health insurance, LOL, see a connection here...
Click to expand...

You would do yourself a service to not dismiss those in disagreement with you, and for legitimate reasons no less. In the end, it weakens your views and stance. Learn to debate rather than dismiss.
 
Necessary...sure, I guess.

But they are a detriment if pro-union laws are around.

Make no laws that are either pro or anti-union...that is the best way, imo.
 
OnWisconsin said:
A trade union is a union that requires you to go to school to learn a trade, through either or both, in class schooling or on the job apprenticeship. Pretty sure dock workers and slaughterhouse employees don't fit that description, but I could be wrong. I know as an Ironworker I am quite glad I have a union to represent me.
Click to expand...

A union with happy members is fully legitimate.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't see anyone else stepping up to protect the interests of workers. I do see a lot of companies doing their best to exploit workers. Seems to me like they're necessary.
Click to expand...
Unions have evolved to protecting themselves as a form of big business first, and workers second, but yeah they are pretty much the only ones looking out for workers at all.
 
ARTHUR 1976 said:
This guy is smart he takes the Union gig, just like i did!! because without union representation they can fire you anytime they want without good reason or cause, so what difference does it make???

I'll have more job security with the union, at least if i go down, the fu@king company will go down with me..
Click to expand...

You're the consummate union member - devoted only to yourself and willing to make ANYONE pay so that you can get yours. There was a time when unions were a good thing, but people like you took over and allowed their greed and selfishness to destroy that unions were doing. I've never worked in a union shop, my job security came not from my union, but from the quality of work I did. I determined my future and my value to my employer, not a group of lawyers/lobbyists, but my effort, my work ethic, my intellect.
 
faithful_servant said:
You're the consummate union member - devoted only to yourself and willing to make ANYONE pay so that you can get yours. There was a time when unions were a good thing, but people like you took over and allowed their greed and selfishness to destroy that unions were doing. I've never worked in a union shop, my job security came not from my union, but from the quality of work I did. I determined my future and my value to my employer, not a group of lawyers/lobbyists, but my effort, my work ethic, my intellect.
Click to expand...
How is that really different from corporate CEOs and shareholders?
 
ocean515 said:
One group is concerned about profits, the other doesn't care.
Click to expand...
Define "profit". All groups are very concerned with their individual profits. CEOs, shareholders, union members, and even non-union workers, ALL are concerned with how much they themselves as individuals take home. Separating them into groups sounds good for debate sake, but is incomplete.
 
radcen said:
Define "profit". All groups are very concerned with their individual profits. CEOs, shareholders, union members, and even non-union workers, ALL are concerned with how much they themselves as individuals take home. Separating them into groups sounds good for debate sake, but is incomplete.
Click to expand...

No need to over think it. CEO's and shareholders are concerned with the health and profitability of the company. Union members are not concerned with the health and profitability of the company.
 
ocean515 said:
No need to over think it. CEO's and shareholders are concerned with the health and profitability of the company. Union members are not concerned with the health and profitability of the company.
Click to expand...

The union I work for, stagehands, works for much less for the local theaters, as they can't afford our corporate rate.

Your position isn't universal.
 
faithful_servant said:
..and when the competition between the two companies comes down to one of them surviving and one of them closing it's doors, it will be the non-union shop that stays open and the union shop that closes.

My issue with unions is that too often they fail to recognize that what is best for the company is normally best for the employee. The industry I work has seen substantial contraction over the last decade or so and the survivors (like us) have generally been the non-union shops.
Click to expand...

I prefer the European cooperative model. But ours is adversarial.

If owners were willing to take a haircut when necessary, unions probably would too.

But owners are only concerned with profits and routinely downsize/offshore when profits are threatened.

It goes both ways.
 
What if...? said:
The union I work for, stagehands, works for much less for the local theaters, as they can't afford our corporate rate.

Your position isn't universal.
Click to expand...

In the broad sense, I suggest it is. Obviously there are exceptions. In your case, it appears to make sense to keep the business viable.
 
faithful_servant said:
You're the consummate union member - devoted only to yourself and willing to make ANYONE pay so that you can get yours. There was a time when unions were a good thing, but people like you took over and allowed their greed and selfishness to destroy that unions were doing. I've never worked in a union shop, my job security came not from my union, but from the quality of work I did. I determined my future and my value to my employer, not a group of lawyers/lobbyists, but my effort, my work ethic, my intellect.
Click to expand...
And Corporations are NOT selfish, greedy, and only look out for their own best interest?? :lamo, yea it's a 2 way street, and save all of your self righteous BS, how many others have used their intellect, and hard work and put in 5-10-15-20 years, only to be put on the street because of some at will employment BS, where they can fire you anytime they want, even if they don't like you, or the color of your skin..
,
 
radcen said:
Unions have evolved to protecting themselves as a form of big business first, and workers second, but yeah they are pretty much the only ones looking out for workers at all.
Click to expand...

Given all the moves to destroy them, it's hardly surprising that unions have to devote a lot of energy to mere survival. They can't very well represent anyone if they're getting crippled themselves, can they?
 
ocean515 said:
No need to over think it. CEO's and shareholders are concerned with the health and profitability of the company. Union members are not concerned with the health and profitability of the company.
Click to expand...
*Why* are CEOs and shareholders concerned with the financial health of the company? It's not for altruistic reasons. No, they want the personal financial benefit to them as individuals. If they didn't have a time and/or financial investment in their company they wouldn't give a rat's arse if the company lived or died.

This is evidenced by companies giving CEOs generous pay and bonus and perks and always looking out for the shareholder over the customer or some other less profitable issue.
 
ocean515 said:
In the broad sense, I suggest it is. Obviously there are exceptions. In your case, it appears to make sense to keep the business viable.
Click to expand...

And on that note, the local opera just weathered a bit of a "scandal".

Times are hard for opera, it doesn't captivate as many people now, so attendance is down. San Diego has a top rate opera, but was going to be in the red next year. The board, which pulls down six figures, voted to end it. Because they would get their salaries for two years if the funds were available, and if they spent the money on the shortfall it wouldn't be there for them.

The company learned of this in the newspaper, after the fact.

A major "save the opera" campaign was started by the union and the company itself and enough was raised to keep the company going, on the condition the directors be replaced.

So in this case, personal gain of a couple of directors was considered more important than the jobs of the entire company and opera afficionados as well.
 
radcen said:
*Why* are CEOs and shareholders concerned with the financial health of the company? It's not for altruistic reasons. No, they want the personal financial benefit to them as individuals. If they didn't have a time and/or financial investment in their company they wouldn't give a rat's arse if the company lived or died.

This is evidenced by companies giving CEOs generous pay and bonus and perks and always looking out for the shareholder over the customer or some other less profitable issue.
Click to expand...

Of course the CEO's and shareholders are all about financial health of the company. The CEO has a fiduciary duty to perform his duties for the benefit of the shareholders. In general there is nothing altruistic about it. Do you think the public employee pension plans who invest in these companies give a rats ass how the employees are treated? They demand an ROI, period, or they will invest elsewhere. That goes for all shareholders.

The most profitable issue is the customer. Without them, there is no revenue, so I'm not sure where you're coming from their. The only ones not really concerned with profits are the employees. They want as much as they can get and they leave it up to management to figure out how to remain healthy and open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom