• 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
Amandi said:
I guess I just havent worked in the right job sectors because no where I have worked supervisors had a fenced in parking lot. As far as bosses removeing people and they being reinstated, find the problem with the system and fix it instead of getting rid of unions. Again, I dont disagree that some things done by unions rise to the level of ridiculous but I have seen and experienced supervisors that play with the employees lives just because they can.
Click to expand...


if you want to attract, and more importantly, keep good employees, playing games with employees lives isnt the way

i made a LOT of mistakes as a manager in my first 5-10 years.....but never that type of mistake

there isnt a handbook of what to do, and what not to do for new supervisors

so they make mistakes....the smart ones learn from them, and try not to make the same type of mistake again

some people do get on power trips.....love the title, but hate the job type of managers

most of those are weeded out fairly quickly nowadays.....too much litigation in the workplace

companies cant afford guys like that on the payroll
 
Amandi said:
It is when the discussion is about what unions affect, since they dont affect who becomes a supervisor. A more appropriate comparison would be a new position comes available that falls into the group they can represent., the union wouldnt just want the most senior person to get the position, they would want the most qualified person. If two people have the same qualifications then seniority would factor in.
Click to expand...

The union doesn't need to police this, and shouldn't be able to. Management already has incentives to hire the best candidate for each job. Basic regulations against nepotism and fraud and other clearly abusive hiring practices, okay, but union micro-management is fundamentally not necessary, rather it is harmfully wasteful and redundant.

I wouldnt argue that unions may need a major overhaul but there is still a use for them. If another way to ensure workers arent exploited comes along, I would definately look into them.
Click to expand...

They already came along.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Davis-Bacon Act
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)
McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA)
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN)
Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Civil Rights Act
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)
Employee Polygraph Protection Act
Consumer Credit Protection Act (CPCA)
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA)
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA)
Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA)
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

Department of Labor
 
"Are Labor and Trade Unions Still Necessary in Our Economy?"

Definately; No!

Especially in the public sector__Unions are simply bad on so many levels!

The crime and corruption alone dwarfs any benefits they claim responsibility for!
 
the ones that actually teach a trade and guarantee the quality of work are useful. scumbag unions like AFSCME or SEIU are not only not needed, but should be abolished. They are nothing more than parasites upon the tax payers
 
Neomalthusian said:
The union doesn't need to police this, and shouldn't be able to. Management already has incentives to hire the best candidate for each job. Basic regulations against nepotism and fraud and other clearly abusive hiring practices, okay, but union micro-management is fundamentally not necessary, rather it is harmfully wasteful and redundant.



They already came along.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Davis-Bacon Act
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)
McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA)
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN)
Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Civil Rights Act
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)
Employee Polygraph Protection Act
Consumer Credit Protection Act (CPCA)
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA)
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA)
Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA)
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

Department of Labor
Click to expand...

Just by posting your list you show another reason that unions are good, for the employees that are not capable or doesnt have enough time to understand all of those laws.
 
Empirica said:
"Are Labor and Trade Unions Still Necessary in Our Economy?"

Definately; No!

Especially in the public sector__Unions are simply bad on so many levels!

The crime and corruption alone dwarfs any benefits they claim responsibility for!
Click to expand...

Provide an alternative to unions or fix the problem but dont get rid of them without a replacement system.
 
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...

There's never anything to stop these benefits from being chipped away at. Except unions, of course.
 
TurtleDude said:
the ones that actually teach a trade and guarantee the quality of work are useful. scumbag unions like AFSCME or SEIU are not only not needed, but should be abolished. They are nothing more than parasites upon the tax payers
Click to expand...

Public sector needs to be protected just as much as the private sector.
 
Amandi said:
Public sector needs to be protected just as much as the private sector.
Click to expand...

actually that is crap. Public sector unions are nothing but parasites given that public sector unions are not bargaining with their actual employers. In a private workplace setting management is on one side and wants labor at the cheapest cost and the union wants to maximize the cost of labor.

in a public setting, the unions often supply critical votes for the people on the "other side" of the table and that leads to the taxpayers getting screwed.

even FDR was against public sector unions
 
TurtleDude said:
the ones that actually teach a trade and guarantee the quality of work are useful. scumbag unions like AFSCME or SEIU are not only not needed, but should be abolished. They are nothing more than parasites upon the tax payers
Click to expand...

That would be a guild, not a union. Nothing wrong with guilds. In fact, we should change all unions to them. Instead of a company hiring individuals, they hire a guild to provide X number of hours of labor for a particular skill. The guilds would take care of training, apprenticeships, benefits and pay. The company gets the work it needs and if the workers don't get what they want, they can corrupt and destroy their own guild instead of a company.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually that is crap. Public sector unions are nothing but parasites given that public sector unions are not bargaining with their actual employers. In a private workplace setting management is on one side and wants labor at the cheapest cost and the union wants to maximize the cost of labor.

in a public setting, the unions often supply critical votes for the people on the "other side" of the table and that leads to the taxpayers getting screwed.

even FDR was against public sector unions
Click to expand...

Welcome to a republic. Elect better representatives (and by representative I mean the elected official who is representing the public). If that representative is the one elected then the majority of the people like the work t that representative is doing.
 
Amandi said:
Welcome to a republic. Elect better representatives (and by representative I mean the elected official who is representing the public). If that representative is the one elected then the majority of the people like the work t that representative is doing.
Click to expand...

that does not support an argument in favor of public sector unions. Unlike private sector unions, public sector unions give the taxpayers absolutely nothing. They provide no training, and no guarantee of good work.
 
Amandi said:
Just by posting your list you show another reason that unions are good, for the employees that are not capable or doesnt have enough time to understand all of those laws.
Click to expand...

That's the argument you're going with? Unions are necessary to inform workers about employment laws?

Unions don't even bring up that these laws exist, and would prefer employees not know they do. It promotes the worker's false belief that it's because of the unions that these workplace protections continue to exist, even though it's actually due to federal law.


TurtleDude said:
actually that is crap. Public sector unions are nothing but parasites given that public sector unions are not bargaining with their actual employers. In a private workplace setting management is on one side and wants labor at the cheapest cost and the union wants to maximize the cost of labor.

in a public setting, the unions often supply critical votes for the people on the "other side" of the table and that leads to the taxpayers getting screwed.
Click to expand...

Exactly right.
 
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...

Well I left that job after a week and got a better non union job. 96 hours of vacation time and 20 hours sick leave! And it's even easier. Maybe my old company was just ran by assholes? The company I was at though by the way is one of the oldest factories in Florence. Been here since the 60s.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's the argument you're going with? Unions are necessary to inform workers about employment laws?

Unions don't even bring up that these laws exist, and would prefer employees not know they do. It promotes the worker's false belief that it's because of the unions that these workplace protections continue to exist, even though it's actually due to federal law.

Exactly right.
Click to expand...

Untrue, the talk about them all the time.

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/1728/15559/file/2013 Legislative Handbook - Chapter 6.pdf
 
If one is under the assumption that unions were necessary to eliminate such travesties as child labor, I don't see how it could be logically put together that unions are no longer necessary in our economy. I'll admit that overall, working conditions and worker's rights are in a better state than they were in the early 20th century, but just looking at current working conditions and poverty rates in the U.S., if we can assume that unions were at one point a necessity, they are certainly a necessity. Ideally, they would be given a more active role in economic activity. Worker's rights are nowhere near won, and even once satisfactory or near-satisfactory conditions are in place, unions will still be needed to maintain them.
 
Lakeside said:
Why do we need unions when Obama is allowing illegals to come to America? These people will work for minimum wage and be very happy to have a job. Isn't that why they are coming here? But of course people will say that "capitalist" will take advantage of these poor illegals. Either way unions are a thing of the past. They WERE good when they were needed but we now have all those laws in place to protect employees. The great Obama has even passed laws for equal pay for women which his WH even refuses to follow. Their is NO true protection for anyone who works. I am working with union craft people now and 75% of them don't like or trust their unions. I could never understand why anyone would want to or have to pay someone to keep a job.
Click to expand...

If the Ironworkers union went away, wages for thousands of people would drop almost in half. It's happening already in many states where they are splintering off parts of the Ironworkers union to do the jobs they once did. For example, steel siding on industrial buildings was once an ironworker job in wisconsin. Now it is being passed to sheet metal workers who get paid a fraction of the wages. This does nothing but benefit big business and destroy the middle class.

In the 1950's and 1960's we had very strong unionization in this country, we also had the strongest middle class we've ever had. My guess is because of a good live-able wage that the unions provided. Now we have a diminishing middle class and only a fraction of the unionization we once had.
 
OnWisconsin said:
If the Ironworkers union went away, wages for thousands of people would drop almost in half. It's happening already in many states where they are splintering off parts of the Ironworkers union to do the jobs they once did. For example, steel siding on industrial buildings was once an ironworker job in wisconsin. Now it is being passed to sheet metal workers who get paid a fraction of the wages. This does nothing but benefit big business and destroy the middle class.

In the 1950's and 1960's we had very strong unionization in this country, we also had the strongest middle class we've ever had. My guess is because of a good live-able wage that the unions provided. Now we have a diminishing middle class and only a fraction of the unionization we once had.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you are a union worker. Did you vote for Obama? Will you vote for Hillary? What has Obama done for unions? Before you say that Obama has done more for unions than Republicans have done, please answer what he has done for unions. Hillary is a well known anti-union person. Unions are toast. Most people do not want to pay for a job. There are laws in place to protect workers. You even said it yourself about unions taking other unions jobs. Unions fell for the old Democratic lie like blacks did from the Democratic Slave Plantation.."Trust us, we know what is best for you". Obama used unions just as he did blacks to garner votes and then pissed on them. The borders are open and it won't be long before amnesty is given to illegals. These people come here to work and will gladly take those overpaid union jobs and will not strike and will be very happy to have a job at half if not less than what union workers are paid. Just my opinion, but you people who voted for Obama got used big time. OUCH. Peace.
 
Lakeside said:
Let me guess, you are a union worker. Did you vote for Obama? Will you vote for Hillary? What has Obama done for unions? Before you say that Obama has done more for unions than Republicans have done, please answer what he has done for unions. Hillary is a well known anti-union person.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant to if they are still needed. If you want to start another thread I will discuss this though.

Lakeside said:
Unions are toast. Most people do not want to pay for a job. There are laws in place to protect workers.
Click to expand...

Unions give the workers the ability to make companies follow those laws. Even now, for a worker to take a company to court for violation, they need a lawyer and that costs money. Unions also protect other things then what is covered by laws, ie the contract between the workers and management.

Lakeside said:
You even said it yourself about unions taking other unions jobs. Unions fell for the old Democratic lie like blacks did from the Democratic Slave Plantation.."Trust us, we know what is best for you". Obama used unions just as he did blacks to garner votes and then pissed on them. The borders are open and it won't be long before amnesty is given to illegals. These people come here to work and will gladly take those overpaid union jobs and will not strike and will be very happy to have a job at half if not less than what union workers are paid. Just my opinion, but you people who voted for Obama got used big time. OUCH. Peace.
Click to expand...

Again, this is off topic.
 
As a government worker I have experienced that my employers are almost as interested in short changing us, over-working us, underpaying us, taking away our benefits and ignoring our safety as private employers.
 
Amandi said:
Totally irrelevant to if they are still needed. If you want to start another thread I will discuss this though.



Unions give the workers the ability to make companies follow those laws. Even now, for a worker to take a company to court for violation, they need a lawyer and that costs money. Unions also protect other things then what is covered by laws, ie the contract between the workers and management.



Again, this is off topic.
Click to expand...

Off topic? I may have embellished a little, but any union talk is all about the economy in my eyes. Why would a company pay a union worker a higher wage when he can get an open border illegal to do the same job for a whole lot less money, hence economy.
 
Lakeside said:
Off topic? I may have embellished a little, but any union talk is all about the economy in my eyes. Why would a company pay a union worker a higher wage when he can get an open border illegal to do the same job for a whole lot less money, hence economy.
Click to expand...

That would be called a Red Hearing. The topic is about if America need unions not illegal immigration.
 
Amandi said:
That would be called a Red Hearing. The topic is about if America need unions not illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to the economy. So my answer is NO to unions being necessary to the economy. Their is cheaper labor available whether it be illegals or any unemployed American.
 
Lakeside said:
It all comes down to the economy. So my answer is NO to unions being necessary to the economy. Their is cheaper labor available whether it be illegals or any unemployed American.
Click to expand...

That's closer but the question is about IN the economy rather than TO the economy.
 
Amandi said:
That's closer but the question is about IN the economy rather than TO the economy.
Click to expand...

My answer is still NO "in" this economy. There is cheaper labor either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom