• 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
I find it interesting that you don't want to know why, but instead are happy to not only believe what you've been told, but to repeat it. Seems to be prevalent in certain segments of society today. A term I first heard coined during Sarah Palin's run for Vice President was "intellectually incurious". At that time with regards to that person it fit very well. I don' think that is a good thing for politicians or voters.

I also find it interesting that you reply to a counter argument as "spin" instead of providing an intellectual counter-point.

However, I do not find it interesting or surprising that your talking point is wrong:


I believe what I have lived

I manage people...right now, around 140....but over the years, thousands

People want management to treat them with respect, and to treat them fairly....no more....no less

You seem to think unions are the only way for that to happen....you are wrong

It is a business I manage....but it isn't successful without the people I employ

They help me....I pay them....win/win for both sides

No unions...no dues....no people on the job that aren't earning their keep

Someone doesn't pull their weight...they are out the door

Someone gives or does more than their coworkers, they are compensated for that extra

It is the way I've been doing business for. 30 plus years and it still works today
 
I don't have much of an issue with unions, so long as:

There are no "closed shops".
Union dues are collected by the union, not the government.
They don't get out of hand, like in some school areas, where it's extremely difficult to fire a teacher, no matter what they do. Lack of teaching ability isn't even on the list as an acceptable reason, it seems.

Probably a few other things I have yet to think of
 
I believe what I have lived

I manage people...right now, around 140....but over the years, thousands

People want management to treat them with respect, and to treat them fairly....no more....no less

You seem to think unions are the only way for that to happen....you are wrong

It is a business I manage....but it isn't successful without the people I employ

They help me....I pay them....win/win for both sides

No unions...no dues....no people on the job that aren't earning their keep

Someone doesn't pull their weight...they are out the door

Someone gives or does more than their coworkers, they are compensated for that extra

It is the way I've been doing business for. 30 plus years and it still works today

I wish more supervisors were this way then I would agree that there would be little need for unions. In my experience, most supervisors arent this way.
 
I believe what I have lived
Based upon the link I provided proving your earlier claim wrong, perhaps you should get out a bit more.

I manage people...right now, around 140....but over the years, thousands [...]
It's the internet -- you can be whatever you want to be ;)

You seem to think unions are the only way for that to happen....you are wrong [...]
Strawman.
 
I don't have much of an issue with unions, so long as:

There are no "closed shops".
If you don't have a closed shop then you have takers (people who take without contributing). I thought takers were unpopular.

Union dues are collected by the union, not the government.
That seems to be a strawman but it is probably a right wing talking point (= falsehood or misrepresentation).

They don't get out of hand, like in some school areas, where it's extremely difficult to fire a teacher, no matter what they do. Lack of teaching ability isn't even on the list as an acceptable reason, it seems. [...]
Another right wing talking point with no facts in evidence. I'd be interested to read about some of these cases.
 
If you don't have a closed shop then you have takers (people who take without contributing). I thought takers were unpopular.
Probably are. I still don't think a closed shop is better, but it may depend on the specifics.


That seems to be a strawman but it is probably a right wing talking point (= falsehood or misrepresentation).
In some areas, dues are subtracted from paychecks and automatically sent to the union.
Technically, if the employer in question is the government...
Still, it is a bit misleading to say the "dues are collected by the government".

I suppose I mainly object to the idea of dues being collected by the employer, from an employee's paycheck. It ties in with my dislike for closed shops.

Another right wing talking point with no facts in evidence. I'd be interested to read about some of these cases.
Teacher unions protecting bad teachers is definitely a politicized topic.

For example, I did a google search for "teacher protected by union", and it came up with the following, among many others:

These two appear to be opposed to unions protecting bad teachers:
Dirty dozen: 12 bad teachers protected by tenure and unions | Fox News
Unions protect bad teachers, not students : The Daily Collegian

And this appears to support unions, countering the idea that they protect bad teachers:

Six Reasons Teachers Unions Are Good for Kids


Edit: I should note that I have not read any of those articles, due to lack of time at the moment.
 
[...] I suppose I mainly object to the idea of dues being collected by the employer, from an employee's paycheck. [...]
We all know what would happen if it was not done that way... the same thing that would happen if income taxes were not being collected by the employer ;)
 
We all know what would happen if it was not done that way... the same thing that would happen if income taxes were not being collected by the employer ;)
Perhaps so.

But to me it seems like a system designed to make it easy for a union to collect dues despite minimal interaction with it's members - perhaps even to the point of seeing them as semi-faceless money generation units, like I suspect some management types do. And politicians.
 
well you obviously have something against unions. did they touch you inappropriately? show me on the doll where they touched you.

Awww...I hurt the poor little "laborer w/o brains" feelings. Keep paying for that job and voting for the people who could care less about you. ROTFLMMFAO.
 
Perhaps so.

But to me it seems like a system designed to make it easy for a union to collect dues despite minimal interaction with it's members - perhaps even to the point of seeing them as semi-faceless money generation units, like I suspect some management types do. And politicians.
The trouble with reality is that you have to deal with it in order to function within it. Payroll deductions are a facet of reality.

The same of redistributing taxes in the form of charity verus expecting everyone being charitable enough to support all those in need voluntarily. The reality of that latter approach was the reason that the 'up front' collection process (taxes) was implemented. I would suggest that it is not the up front collection that is distasteful, but the all-too-common human condition that necessitates it. But that's another discussion . . . .
 
The trouble with reality is that you have to deal with it in order to function within it. Payroll deductions are a facet of reality.

The same of redistributing taxes in the form of charity verus expecting everyone being charitable enough to support all those in need voluntarily. The reality of that latter approach was the reason that the 'up front' collection process (taxes) was implemented. I would suggest that it is not the up front collection that is distasteful, but the all-too-common human condition that necessitates it. But that's another discussion . . . .
The way I look at it, union membership should be voluntary - thus no closed shops and no up front dues subtracted from paychecks.

Not sure how accurate Wikipedia is on the subject, but I glanced at it and it mentioned that some unions do not except dues collected by the employer, and in fact a few require that they be collected directly from the member.
 
The way I look at it, union membership should be voluntary - thus no closed shops and no up front dues subtracted from paychecks. [...]
You are entitled to your opinion but rational thought as well as historical precedent should clearly show that neither would work, except to weaken and destroy unions. Of course I realize that very result is why some with a partisan agenda support an opinion mirroring yours (not saying that is your reason).

In any case, union membership is voluntary; always has been. There are plenty of non-union jobs for those that in general desire lower pay, fewer benefits, and less protection from abusive employers. Enjoy! ;)

One union I know of collected the dues from the vacation fund, which was paid directly to the union from the employer, then paid to the member. Effectively the same as a direct employer deduction. Bottom line, and as I said before, everyone knows why these fees are collected up front, so it's really not a topic of useful discussion.
 
No relevancy in this day and age.
 
You are entitled to your opinion but rational thought as well as historical precedent should clearly show that neither would work, except to weaken and destroy unions. Of course I realize that very result is why some with a partisan agenda support an opinion mirroring yours (not saying that is your reason).

In any case, union membership is voluntary; always has been. There are plenty of non-union jobs for those that in general desire lower pay, fewer benefits, and less protection from abusive employers. Enjoy! ;)

One union I know of collected the dues from the vacation fund, which was paid directly to the union from the employer, then paid to the member. Effectively the same as a direct employer deduction. Bottom line, and as I said before, everyone knows why these fees are collected up front, so it's really not a topic of useful discussion.
IMO unions are only necessary if employers ARE abusive or whatever.

If you work for a good employer, you don't need a union, and frankly I think that's the main good thing about unions - they encourage employers to make it so their employees are not interested in that kind of thing.

Of course that can be bad if they go about it the wrong way, too.
 
I wish you well in your search for good employers... offhand I'd say your odds are less than 50/50, decreasing proportionally with the size of the employer.

FedEx (non-union) and UPS (union) drivers are a useful comparison, altho UPS has absorbed some non-union companies and continues to operate them as non-union subsidiaries. The union UPS drivers have a much better deal, and both companies are profitable with comparable rates to consumers. Using that as a case study, there is no union evil that the corporate-fueled talking heads (and politicians) incessantly try to find/manufacture and pound into their minions' heads.
 
We all know what would happen if it was not done that way... the same thing that would happen if income taxes were not being collected by the employer ;)


This would seem to indicate most people don't feel they receive value for their union dues.
 
This would seem to indicate most people don't feel they receive value for their union dues.
Actually it would indicate many people are a little short on scruples. Hopefully it is less than half (most). But the point is that if only a third fail to follow up on their legal/contractual/moral obligations then the entity relying on that support would experience difficulty, perhaps serious or terminal difficulty, in performing its intended task.

Of course, as already mentioned, for its detractors that difficulty is the goal.

There is a difference in reasoning between looking at all the elements of a situation then making a decision or conclusion, versus starting with the conclusion and emphasizing the elements what would lead to that conclusion while ignoring or minimizing the elements that do not lead to the desired pre-determined conclusion. In fact the second approach is not reasoning at all, but more of a meme or a dogma -- essentially the antithesis of independent thought.
 
This would seem to indicate most people don't feel they receive value for their union dues.

In quite a few states, it means the states mandate the unions help people wether they pay dues or not.
 
I'm all for folks not paying Union dues.
As long as they're willing to go back to the pre-Union conditions that President T. Roosevelt fought against.
Along with them working weekends for no extra pay.
And representing themselves with safety issues.
And not receiving unemployment benefits.

Should be an interesting Labor Day weekend with people biting the hand that directly/indirectly feeds them .
 
Some unions are still relevant today but the vast majority aren't.

And example of unions who aren't needed and are damaging today are public sector unions.
Another example of where unions are holding back progress is in manufacturing. If jobs can be automated, jobs should be automated.

An example of unions that are still needed or should exist if it doesn't is garbage collectors union for every garbage collecting company out there.
Basically those areas where technology doesn't have an answer and where jobs give a low quality of life and low work satisfaction. Basically jobs who are just jobs and not careers. Fast food joints should have unions. I'm sorry, a lot of people will scream "but mah hamburger". Yeah, you shouldn't eat those everyday anyway. But they should have unions because working conditions are awful. Starbucks, mcdonalds, wendys', kfc, all of them.

Truckers for instance are at a turning point. Until now, it may have been nice for them to have, if they didn't have, an union to represent them. But now, those that exist need to go away and no new ones formed because in about 10-20 years I think we'll see the first prototype of complete driverless car that can replace their job.

LOL at "working conditions are awful." I can see how working in an air conditioned building for 8 hours at a time can be an inhumane thing to ask of someone. And having to stand up? What is this, a gulag? I've worked fast food. While it's certainly not my idea of a winning career, it's far from awful. The kids who assembled your sneakers would probably have a thing or two to teach you about awful.
 
The way I look at it, union membership should be voluntary - thus no closed shops and no up front dues subtracted from paychecks.

Not sure how accurate Wikipedia is on the subject, but I glanced at it and it mentioned that some unions do not except dues collected by the employer, and in fact a few require that they be collected directly from the member.

If you don't like the way unions are run, dont join one right? Most unionized business' have competitors that are non union. You are more than free to go join the non-union job and make less money.
 
In quite a few states, it means the states mandate the unions help people wether they pay dues or not.

Simply the passive non-direct threat of potential unionization helps non-union workers to receive better working condititions and compensation.

Companies treat their workers better, in order to reduce their interest in joining unions. If a company treats it's employees right, and pays them well, they really have little reason to unionize. Most people would prefer to not have to deal with union rules, and I'm talking about labor AND management.
 
Simply the passive non-direct threat of potential unionization helps non-union workers to receive better working condititions and compensation.

Companies treat their workers better, in order to reduce their interest in joining unions. If a company treats it's employees right, and pays them well, they really have little reason to unionize. Most people would prefer to not have to deal with union rules, and I'm talking about labor AND management.

I don't mind that part. I don't mind giving non-union the same contract given to union members. What I was referring to was when states mandate that the union has to represent non-union in grievances with the company.
 
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?

Necessary like the mob is necessary for crooks to make money.
 
If you don't like the way unions are run, dont join one right? Most unionized business' have competitors that are non union. You are more than free to go join the non-union job and make less money.

Maybe that is the experience of some, however, it was never my experience. I received regular pay raises and later opportunities to move up when working at a non-union place, but not at a union one.

For the conscientious, motivated hard worker, non-union offers much better opportunities. For the "what is required" and "I have to work" crowd who put out no extra effort or even a decent attitude, then unions are good for them. For the sub-standard worker, unions are definitely good for them as the unions offer means of protecting their jobs that they don't actually do up to standards.
 
Back
Top Bottom