• 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!

Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?kkkkkkk

If you support workers ability to collectively bargain, what do you support?


  • Total voters
    58
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I am no fan of the UAW and it is the union I twice voted against having represent where I worked, however...

Blaming the UAW for GM/Chrysler going bankrupt is incredibly incomplete. First, remember that Ford also has UAW but did not go bankrupt. Toyota is not unionized, but had serious problems over the same time period. What caused GM/Chrysler to go bankrupt was a bad economy and very poor management decisions, plus the UAW contract.

Secondly, you cannot really blame the UAW for the contract. Their job was to get as much as they can for their workers. They succeeded.

Lastly, realize that pointing the finger to any one or two things as the reason a company the size of GM or Chrysler goes bankrupt is vastly oversimplifying things. This post vastly oversimplifies things. Details like problems with tier 1 and 2 suppliers, snowballing negative press, and many many other things played significant roles in GM and Chrysler going bankrupt. Blaming the UAW, even as "a significant reason" is simply looking for scapegoats and not looking at the real situation.
I blame management for GM and Chrysler problems, they sat on their fat asses when the imports like Toyota ran right past them. They got lazy and complacent in a very competitive world.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I blame management for GM and Chrysler problems, they sat on their fat asses when the imports like Toyota ran right past them. They got lazy and complacent in a very competitive world.

That is equally simplistic if slightly more accurate. What you had was a confluence of events all occurring due to the plunge in the economy, or becoming problems due to the plunge in the economy. While management should have done better, it was not possible to predict all that did happen.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

It isn't a matter of protecting their interests, is it? It's a matter of getting all they can extort.

In some cases, sure it is. That's what any negotiation turns into when one side gets too much influence over the other or gets too much of what they want.

FWIW, there are private sector jobs that are riskier. Farming is more dangerous than police work.

Depends on how you define risk and what jurisdiction you're talking about, I guess.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I disagree. Some public unions represent people we hire to go into harm's way. I don't think there's anything wrong with them getting together to ensure their interests are protected.

Can you provide more information on this? Where in collective bargaining has the local government fought the public unions when safety was at hand? There may be isolated incidents where police want new bullet proof vests every year, but are there examples of local or state governments denying cops or firefighters safety equipment in collective bargaining?
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I don't think that anyone should be forced to join a union. But the non-union and union workers can have different contracts too. There's no point in the non-union worker deriving the benefit of union resolve without paying into the system. Although that opens the door for certain corporate meddling. You also don't have to pay dues, but if you are in a union you should pay dues to that union. Meaning, you need to pay less you choose not to be in one. You can be from a different union too; though probably you want to belong to the local one since it will be more responsive to your actual needs.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Can you provide more information on this? Where in collective bargaining has the local government fought the public unions when safety was at hand? There may be isolated incidents where police want new bullet proof vests every year, but are there examples of local or state governments denying cops or firefighters safety equipment in collective bargaining?

Sure. I can pull from my father's experience as a Sheriff's deputy.

The county where he worked for 30 years or so developed a retention problem over time, based on a couple of factors. First, they didn't keep up with surrounding counties on the retirement package they offered -- I don't remember the exact numbers, but it came down to how many years you had to put in before you could retire and get a pension, and the fact that our county was requiring a longer service than other counties in the area. Second, the schedule they required deputies to work was 6-2/6-3 -- 6 days on, 2 days off, 6 days on, 3 days off.

The end result was that the young guys who got hired on and who would ostensibly be replacing guys like my dad spent a couple years in our county getting experience and then got a job in a county with a better package and shift requirements. My dad, for a long time, was pulling extra half shifts and doubles because they were short-handed. The overtime was profitable I guess, but it was a real safety issue -- third shifts during the week, which is primarily what my dad worked, had all of 3 deputies for the entire county. If you got into trouble, backup could be as far off as 20 minutes, and if they were pulling a double they wouldn't be as sharp as you needed them to be when they showed up. This is exacerbated by the fact that, unlike the state police, deputies rode 1 to a car during the overnights, whereas the state cops always rode 2 to a car.

I think they've started to get the retention problem under control because the union negotiated a better package, but I remember it being a real issue throughout my childhood. The job really wore my old man out because they couldn't keep enough guys on to reliably cover the county.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

With the recall against Walker utterly failing I decided to resurrect this poll instead of doing another.No sense in having a couple or more of the same poll.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Why would anyone who supports collective bargaining oppose unions? It's illogical.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I happen to be against Public Sector Unions as they take the taxpayers money. Private Unions are a different thing. I encourage workers to form unions to make sure that hours don't go overboard, safety issues remain a top priority, and wages don't dip to minimum wage levels. Unions shouldn't have a voice in politics. Unions shouldn't demand outrageous wages.

Never should ANYONE ever be required to join a union upon getting a job. That should always be the choice of the worker.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I chose several of the above options, mostly relating to the fact that I'm not a fan of union shop.

I am also not a fan of unions being powerful enough to buy off government officials -- but then again, I'm also not a fan of anyone being able to buy off government officials.

I also believe that governments should not be able to use the force of law to break contracts they have entered into with unions.

I disagree with your last statement. No gov't official should have the right for "forever" promises in any contract. If we the sheeple can not "freeze" our social security benefit age then NO gov't employee has any "super right" to first dibs on my tax money EVER. Just because some politician got elected 20 years ago and made a moronic promise in a pension plan does not make it irrevokable or forever binding. Far too many wish to forget that "our" SS "trust me" accounts are full of IOUs just as the union pension funds are, yet that is tinkered with constantly. I am sick of gov't employees talking of all these "rights" that they have that do not apply to the 95% that are constantly taxed to pay them.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

1) a private employer should be able to ban or allow unions

2) a private employer can make his business an open shop, a closed shop or an agency shop

3) If you don't like the employer's arrangement don't work there

4) Public sector unions should be banned
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

1) a private employer should be able to ban or allow unions

2) a private employer can make his business an open shop, a closed shop or an agency shop

3) If you don't like the employer's arrangement don't work there

4) Public sector unions should be banned

In other words, there should be no unions. Historically, how has that worked out for workers?
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Yes that's why I'm on the fence: the issue of free-ridership. However, in practical terms how can you make an individual worker not benefit from improved or safer working conditions?

Same here.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

China has had a growth rate over 5 percent for quite some time now.

Obviously we should look at them regarding union laws.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

In other words, there should be no unions. Historically, how has that worked out for workers?

well if you started a business with Randel and Haymarket you could allow unions. Some employers might like them. and in some areas if enough labor were to join an employer would have no choice but to allow unions. That's the way it should be-not the government artificially propping up unions that couldn't survive without government help

I tend to be rather disrespectful of the idiotic expansions of the commerce clause and other "interpretations" that gave congress the power to support unions. Its not a proper function of congress
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

well if you started a business with Randel and Haymarket you could allow unions. Some employers might like them. and in some areas if enough labor were to join an employer would have no choice but to allow unions. That's the way it should be-not the government artificially propping up unions that couldn't survive without government help

I tend to be rather disrespectful of the idiotic expansions of the commerce clause and other "interpretations" that gave congress the power to support unions. Its not a proper function of congress

Well, it is apparent there are those who disagree with you, but the reality of what your propose is that there would be no unions. We ahd a time like that, so we have history. How did that work out?
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Well, it is apparent there are those who disagree with you, but the reality of what your propose is that there would be no unions. We ahd a time like that, so we have history. How did that work out?


its not really a valid question given we now have plenty of laws that protect workers. We have OSHA W&H etc.

so that has no relevance. And I don't oppose private unions if the employer wants or needs union labor

Public sector unions are anathema to the taxpayers' best interests and should be abolished
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

its not really a valid question given we now have plenty of laws that protect workers. We have OSHA W&H etc.

so that has no relevance. And I don't oppose private unions if the employer wants or needs union labor

Public sector unions are anathema to the taxpayers' best interests and should be abolished

Things are better today, true, but largely because of the work of unions and that government intereference you dislike. Remove them, and do you really believe things won't revert? So, no, the question is valid.

And what you're saying concerning public unions is that public employees have a collective voice in order to negotiate is against the ebst interest of the tax payer. Sure, if they would work for free, the tax payer would certainly have to pay less. But that's not fair either. Nor is it fair to regulate public empoyees to second class status behind private employees, who can bargin collectively.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Things are better today, true, but largely because of the work of unions and that government intereference you dislike. Remove them, and do you really believe things won't revert? So, no, the question is valid.

And what you're saying concerning public unions is that public employees have a collective voice in order to negotiate is against the ebst interest of the tax payer. Sure, if they would work for free, the tax payer would certainly have to pay less. But that's not fair either. Nor is it fair to regulate public empoyees to second class status behind private employees, who can bargin collectively.

Unions had their place in private industry and were able to produce reforms in many cases before FDR started violating the tenth amendment by supporting them. But even he understood that public sector unions are an abomination. The government has a duty to pay equal workers equal salaries. Public sector unions do not bargain fairly because they often decide who they negotiate against
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Unions had their place in private industry and were able to produce reforms in many cases before FDR started violating the tenth amendment by supporting them. But even he understood that public sector unions are an abomination. The government has a duty to pay equal workers equal salaries. Public sector unions do not bargain fairly because they often decide who they negotiate against

unions will be here when your deceased
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

unions will be here when your deceased

that would be you're

and so will tapeworms, chiggers and mosquitos. your point (note the proper use of your)
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Generally, anyone who earns a wage or salary should do so contractually. Anyone who works collectively should do so through collective bargaining.

Unions provide the very necessary economic function of keeping the capital in circulation. Without such circulation, capital invariably coagulates in the upper extremities of society, causing the lower extremities to become increasingly anemic to the point where they become gangrenous. Eventually, the whole of society dies from socioeconomic septicemia which is expressed most visibly in the throes of violent endogenous revolution and/or violent exogenous invasion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Unions had their place in private industry and were able to produce reforms in many cases before FDR started violating the tenth amendment by supporting them. But even he understood that public sector unions are an abomination. The government has a duty to pay equal workers equal salaries. Public sector unions do not bargain fairly because they often decide who they negotiate against

Are you suggesting Business never plays a role in who is nominated? Wealthy people paly no role? If only unions donated to the cause, you might have a point. But frankly a lot of anti-union forces donate as much or more to candidates. I'm sorry, but there is no preversion, and unions are merely being scapegoated.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Are you suggesting Business never plays a role in who is nominated? Wealthy people paly no role? If only unions donated to the cause, you might have a point. But frankly a lot of anti-union forces donate as much or more to candidates. I'm sorry, but there is no preversion, and unions are merely being scapegoated.

Private businesses tend to compete against one another. that is the last thing public sector unions want to do

can you see it-SEIU tells the City of Cincinnati it will set pay at 2X minimum wage and AFSCME comes in and wait it will supply janitors for city hall who only want 1.5X minimum wage
 
Back
Top Bottom