• 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!

Let's talk about Unions.

Cigar said:
The last time my Father worked in a Union, was for The Illinois State Police. The reason why he left was because the racism within was greater that the racism in the street.
Click to expand...

Cool story. Police don't need unions for collective bargaining.
 
What I find interesting in this thread is that no one has been in a union shop. I know this because of the language used and the incrimination's made. So much mis information has been bandied around and the truth has not even been breached with regards to how and what unions are and do.
 
Taxman said:
What I find interesting in this thread is that no one has been in a union shop. I know this because of the language used and the incrimination's made. So much mis information has been bandied around and the truth has not even been breached with regards to how and what unions are and do.
Click to expand...

Oh, then please, enlighten us. I'm dying to know what unions are and do. How don't I know already? Do unions hide why they are and do? Gosh I've tried so hard to understand what they are and do, yet somehow I still don't know?

Were union shops addressed by Taft-Hartley in some way or another, or no? Are union security clauses allowed under federal law, or not? (They are.) What do union security clauses normally say? Are employers forced to agree with those union security clauses? If employers aren't forced to agree with union security clauses in the first place, why do unions argue so much against right to work laws?

Please feel free to answer any of those questions, if you indeed have some sort of intimate knowledge of unions that somehow no one else in this thread comprehends. Would love to know. Thanks in advance.
 
The concept of collective bargaining can be effective to leverage workers interests against the interests of the company's management.
That being said, it can also be detrimental to the rights of individual workers, and to the ability of the company to manage itself efficiently.
The problem is that most Unions are poorly managed and operate from a socialist agenda.
 
I think you can't eat cake all day and not get fat. If you want capitalism, you want protection of the worker. Yet, the union cares only for the union, nothing else. It's self interests, just like the companies. The Unions are only playing by the rules.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Whenever someone mentions unions, one of two things usually comes to mind.

1. Unions are political machines that create laws favorable to themselves, that hurt both employee and employer. They force businesses to pay unfair wages, and keep on employees who aren't pulling their weight. They are an example of why socialism is inferior to capitalism.

2. Unions protect the common worker in a world hostile to the common worker. They allow for collective bargaining and ensure each worker gets fair compensation in the form of wages and benefits. That without unions, jobs keeping many people comfortably in the middle class would drop to near minimum wage.

In my opinion, both sentiments are accurate. Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger.

The ones still left in the US that is, because even cheaper than dealing with unions or shelling out for the automation. Is transporting your existing capital to a cheaper labor market. And with 2 billion people half of whom live well under the poverty line already, China can't be beat in the labor market. But the one drawback to Chinese labor is lack of certain infrastructure. High Tech production infrastructure to be exact. A great deal goes into making certain things, like planes, and while China does have some of its own. Most of their valuable infrastructure is state controlled. And if you built your own down there, the state could take that to. Communism sucks like that.

I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. But there are ones for lack of a better term, still stuck here. That we can expand. With our ultimate goal fending off automation for as long as possible while ensuring a fair market value for labor. And I think Unions easing off is a necessary step towards that. The most obvious concession Unions should make is on Terminations. Businesses should have a right to set a certain level of productivity. And if that level isn't met consistently, they should reserve the right to terminate. And employee compensation in total should equal the fair market price for the job in question. Businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for Cadillac insurance plans on top of an inflated salary. And finally, everyone should fund their own retirement. It's not difficult when your being fairly compensated for your work and you take appropriate steps.

I do not mean to imply that the businesses should always be at an advantage. But rather, an equilibrium sought between the Unions ability to bargain on what fair market compensation is and the businesses right to maintain standards and a certain level of profitability. Finding this equilibrium will take a fair amount of patience and practice from everyone involved. And a great deal of thought, for anyone familiar with Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recently stumbled on this article going into a different take on Smith's views. It claims Smith called for an equilibrium as well.

How would you like to see the way Unions operate change? And what are your thoughts on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?
Click to expand...

Germany has a wonderful cooperative union structure that works well. But, that's Germans for ya. Efficiency is a religion over there.

Our unions became mobbed up. And, that was the beginning of the end for them. Now, gangsters wear suits instead of denim and workboots. They earn MBA's and then operate banks and other financial institutions.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Whenever someone mentions unions, one of two things usually comes to mind.

1. Unions are political machines that create laws favorable to themselves, that hurt both employee and employer. They force businesses to pay unfair wages, and keep on employees who aren't pulling their weight. They are an example of why socialism is inferior to capitalism.

2. Unions protect the common worker in a world hostile to the common worker. They allow for collective bargaining and ensure each worker gets fair compensation in the form of wages and benefits. That without unions, jobs keeping many people comfortably in the middle class would drop to near minimum wage.

In my opinion, both sentiments are accurate. Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger.

The ones still left in the US that is, because even cheaper than dealing with unions or shelling out for the automation. Is transporting your existing capital to a cheaper labor market. And with 2 billion people half of whom live well under the poverty line already, China can't be beat in the labor market. But the one drawback to Chinese labor is lack of certain infrastructure. High Tech production infrastructure to be exact. A great deal goes into making certain things, like planes, and while China does have some of its own. Most of their valuable infrastructure is state controlled. And if you built your own down there, the state could take that to. Communism sucks like that.

I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. But there are ones for lack of a better term, still stuck here. That we can expand. With our ultimate goal fending off automation for as long as possible while ensuring a fair market value for labor. And I think Unions easing off is a necessary step towards that. The most obvious concession Unions should make is on Terminations. Businesses should have a right to set a certain level of productivity. And if that level isn't met consistently, they should reserve the right to terminate. And employee compensation in total should equal the fair market price for the job in question. Businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for Cadillac insurance plans on top of an inflated salary. And finally, everyone should fund their own retirement. It's not difficult when your being fairly compensated for your work and you take appropriate steps.

I do not mean to imply that the businesses should always be at an advantage. But rather, an equilibrium sought between the Unions ability to bargain on what fair market compensation is and the businesses right to maintain standards and a certain level of profitability. Finding this equilibrium will take a fair amount of patience and practice from everyone involved. And a great deal of thought, for anyone familiar with Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recently stumbled on this article going into a different take on Smith's views. It claims Smith called for an equilibrium as well.

How would you like to see the way Unions operate change? And what are your thoughts on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?
Click to expand...

unions should be made illegal again since they drove 10 million jobs off shore with their high prices and junk quality.
 
My experience with Unions. I have had them literally claim I was taking food out of their babies mouths because I tightened a loose water fitting that kept a factory production machine down for hours and was going to take hours for them to get to. I have been doing machine repair and maintenance for 17 years, I direct multiple union shops but especially electricians on how to do their job, yet my experience could not get me a journeymans cert because its not union approved work. They cant even begin to do my job. 20+ years at the same factory working on the same machines, yet they have to call me in to fix it. I have worked on these machines for 3 years. And they constantly complain they are not trained despite me spending several week long trips training them.

I have worked with operators in a union making more than me to fix the equipment. When a local employer had their contract coming up the employer said they cant pay $30/hr for a union operator when they could hire them for $12.50. The unions response? Demand more flexible schedules, demand better health insurance contributions. It was a long an interesting conversation with the shop boss as I trained her. She even went as far to say they needed to let food get contaminated so it was recalled to send a message to the corporation. I looked straight at her and said you would be willing to hurt the public just to get your way? Guess what happened? The union didnt get what they want. Now operators there are paid $12.50 and a lot of Oreo's are made in Mexico.

They are nothing more than a monopoly of labor and have the same effects on a market as any union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
sookster said:
I think you can't eat cake all day and not get fat. If you want capitalism, you want protection of the worker. Yet, the union cares only for the union, nothing else. It's self interests, just like the companies. The Unions are only playing by the rules.
Click to expand...

union rules are granted by govt to favor union workers over non union workers. It is pure corruption to pick one group over another. Govt is not there to be bought off by special interest groups. Capitalism protects workers since it requires companies to have the best products and jobs possible just to survive. if you doubt it for a second please start a company with substandard jobs and products.
 
calamity said:
Germany has a wonderful cooperative union structure that works well. But, that's Germans for ya. Efficiency is a religion over there.
Click to expand...

I would dispute the notion that hundreds of thousands of workdays lost to strike action constitutes even the most warped notions of "efficiency."

And after reading articles like this one, I would also question the characterization of this union structure as "wonderful" and "cooperative."

https://www.ft.com/content/d89d2c82-008f-11e5-b91e-00144feabdc0

I've heard they have too many different unions for their own good and that it's turned into somewhat of a cluster**** at times. I've also heard that German unions are relatively pro-free trade, whereas American unions are big-time protectionists, like Steve Bannon-esque, insane protectionists. I also wonder how tilted German unions are toward taking over public employment the way American unions seem to be.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I would dispute the notion that hundreds of thousands of workdays lost to strike action constitutes even the most warped notions of "efficiency."

And after reading articles like this one, I would also question the characterization of this union structure as "wonderful" and "cooperative."

https://www.ft.com/content/d89d2c82-008f-11e5-b91e-00144feabdc0

I've heard they have too many different unions for their own good and that it's turned into somewhat of a cluster**** at times. I've also heard that German unions are relatively pro-free trade, whereas American unions are big-time protectionists, like Steve Bannon-esque, insane protectionists. I also wonder how tilted German unions are toward taking over public employment the way American unions seem to be.
Click to expand...

I've worked very closely with both US and German automotive union employees back in the days when I led teams that installed automation. So, my judgement is based on that personal experience. It might be anecdotal or not...who knows?

My take was the UAW hindered progress, if not being downright obstinate and even sabotaging our efforts. Meanwhile, the GAW was the exact opposite. They were actually an asset to have around. Very helpful, threw us a few ideas, and saw our stuff as a tool to help them do their jobs better. UAW saw us as the enemy.

Much, if not all, of it is a culture thing. Here, labor hates management and management has an adversarial relationship with union workers. So, we were seen as management's tool to eliminate jobs. Germans saw it completely different. But, their shop floor workers do not hate the people with office jobs. Night and day differences.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Ya, they are at lows because businesses are refusing to play with them at all. And why many conservative states are busting up unions in favor of the temp agency model. Which will hurt their constituents in the long run. And they are a factor, did not mean to imply they were the sole driver, in decisions to move offshore or automate.
Click to expand...

I was born and raised in Texas and still havent run into these " low wages " that people who support Unions claim exist in my right to work state

If your'e equating what the workers at our auto manufacturers used to get as a example of proper wages, then just know that led to unsustainable contracts, thousands of dollars of legacy cost tacked onto evey new car and the US Govt bailout of the big 3

We hire a guy from Michigan who wound up being the generation of his family that didnt wind up working at Ford.

He gaves us a idea of what his Father got as part of his compensation package which included access to Ford council after retirement, free of charge.

Unions are dying because investors and corporations have a choice to move away from pro-union states.
 
calamity said:
I've worked very closely with both US and German automotive union employees back in the days when I led teams that installed automation. So, my judgement is based on that personal experience. It might be anecdotal or not...who knows?

My take was the UAW hindered progress, if not being downright obstinate and even sabotaging our efforts. Meanwhile, the GAW was the exact opposite. They were actually an asset to have around. Very helpful, threw us a few ideas, and saw our stuff as a tool to help them do their jobs better. UAW saw us as the enemy.

Much, if not all, of it is a culture thing. Here, labor hates management and management has an adversarial relationship with union workers. So, we were seen as management's tool to eliminate jobs. Germans saw it completely different. But, their shop floor workers do not hate the people with office jobs. Night and day differences.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just some peculiar "culture," I think the dynamics are pretty easy to understand.

A union (the union itself, not the groups of individuals unions represent) does not benefit from its members even being on OK terms with management. For employees to be on OK or better terms with management is an existential threat to the union. The union benefits most when its members have virtually unwavering hatred of management.

Management is in the business of buying labor to keep things operating and get things done. When an employer goes through the effort of creating and posting job bulletins and job descriptions, paying to advertise for the work, saying in the advertisement what is paid in exchange for the work, spending the time to review the applications, personally interviewing candidates, and then hearing the candidates explain why they want the job, would love the job, understand the job requirements, are plenty happy with the pay, and basically plead to be the one chosen for the job, and then they're chosen, and then the employee, once hired, turns an about face and immediately starts wailing about the terms of the employment, complaining about underpayment, threatening to strike if new demands aren't met, no reasonable or rational person could respect that behavior.

That's not a matter of managers having something against an individual because he or she is in a union. It's a simple matter of respecting the process of mutually deciding and agreeing on the terms of a sale of labor. If the terms are agreeable, the sale is made. It would be like if you hired a contractor to build you a house for $100,000 and the contractor happily signed it and gave you a firm smiling handshake and the next day showed up to protest in front of your house or sued you because he feels he deserves $130,000 for the project.

There's nothing peculiarly or strangely "cultural" about these tactics and behaviors. They're a simple mechanism of coercion. And yes, that includes German unions. The strikes there (among other things) are inherently an act of sabotage intended to coerce buyers of labor to accept a price the buyers don't otherwise want to accept.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
I don't think it's just some peculiar "culture," I think the dynamics are pretty easy to understand.

A union (the union itself, not the groups of individuals unions represent) does not benefit from its members even being on OK terms with management. For employees to be on OK or better terms with management is an existential threat to the union. The union benefits most when its members have virtually unwavering hatred of management.

Management is in the business of buying labor to keep things operating and get things done. When an employer goes through the effort of creating and posting job bulletins and job descriptions, paying to advertise for the work, saying in the advertisement what is paid in exchange for the work, spending the time to review the applications, personally interviewing candidates, and then hearing the candidates explain why they want the job, would love the job, understand the job requirements, are plenty happy with the pay, and basically plead to be the one chosen for the job, and then they're chosen, and then the employee, once hired, turns an about face and immediately starts wailing about the terms of the employment, complaining about underpayment, threatening to strike if new demands aren't met, no reasonable or rational person could respect that behavior.

That's not a matter of managers having something against an individual because he or she is in a union. It's a simple matter of respecting the process of mutually deciding and agreeing on the terms of a sale of labor. If the terms are agreeable, the sale is made. It would be like if you hired a contractor to build you a house for $100,000 and the contractor happily signed it and gave you a firm smiling handshake and the next day showed up to protest in front of your house or sued you because he feels he deserves $130,000 for the project.

There's nothing peculiarly or strangely "cultural" about these tactics and behaviors. They're a simple mechanism of coercion. And yes, that includes German unions. The strikes there (among other things) are inherently an act of sabotage intended to coerce buyers of labor to accept a price the buyers don't otherwise want to accept.
Click to expand...

In my current position, if a union attempted to infiltrate, after consulting our lawyers, I would downsize immediately and begin outsourcing all low-skilled labor, bringing in temporary employees to fill various gaps. I would then work with my ownership team to capitalize everything with high end robotics. So, I know exactly what you mean. A union can destroy an otherwise healthy operation.
 
jdog said:
The concept of collective bargaining can be effective to leverage workers interests against the interests of the company's management.
That being said, it can also be detrimental to the rights of individual workers, and to the ability of the company to manage itself efficiently.
The problem is that most Unions are poorly managed and operate from a socialist agenda.
Click to expand...

wrong, the problem is unions interfere with the free market. They raised car prices, for example, artificially and lowered quality artificially hurting sales. Owners had no choice but to move to where there was free market wages and quality in order to survive. it all could have been avoided by making unions illegal again
 
calamity said:
In my current position, if a union attempted to infiltrate, after consulting our lawyers, I would downsize immediately and begin outsourcing all low-skilled labor, bringing in temporary employees to fill various gaps. I would then work with my ownership team to capitalize everything with high end robotics. So, I know exactly what you mean. A union can destroy an otherwise healthy operation.
Click to expand...

My current position is in municipal government. Municipal governments cannot make the decision to massively outsource their work and fill permanent positions with temporary ones. Most also can't be capitalized with high-end robotics.

Guess where unionism is most concentrated?

Municipal government.
 
Neomalthusian said:
My current position is in municipal government. Municipal governments cannot make the decision to massively outsource their work and fill permanent positions with temporary ones. Most also can't be capitalized with high-end robotics.

Guess where unionism is most concentrated?

Municipal government.
Click to expand...

I have zero experience working with Muni Unions, teacher's unions or those which represent professional athletes. I can only go by what I read about them. I would be interested in hearing about some of your personal experiences in that sector.

My first exposure to the insanity within the UAW and other American manufacturing unions came about during the late 1970's. I was a young co-op draftsman in a union machine shop located just north of Detroit during high school. If you asked me at the time what I thought, I would have replied that they must have written into their contract a clause stating that they are not required to actually work. It was that bad.

Later in life, I spent a lot of time installing equipment into automotive plants, both in union shops and non union. The union shop jobs required us to quote double the cost, mostly because it would take 4 times as long. The upside was that we could schedule fewer of our own people because nearly 80% of the labor was supplied by the union, at ridiculous rates, of course. Non-union shops, like Honda, were completely different. We brought in an army o specialists: electricians, mechanics, millwrights, riggers, etc,; hammered out the job in record time, usually by instituting a 24-hour per day schedule, and then moved on within a week or so. Union shop, we were stuck there for at least a month.
 
Let's talk about Unions.
Click to expand...

ok.

i was able to enjoy a more middle class childhood thanks in part to my parents' membership in a union, which helped them to get better benefits and compensation for their hard work. college would have been available to me even if i hadn't gotten the scholarships which paid for a good part of it. my GF is currently a member of a union, and has rights and benefits that i don't have. i could be canned for any reason or for no reason at all even if i do a great job. also, i have zero leverage to negotiate for anything, including basic working conditions outside of what is covered by OSHA. i'm a highly skilled scientist with many years of experience. if joining a union was even possible in my field, i would sign up in a second.
 
Taxman said:
What I find interesting in this thread is that no one has been in a union shop. I know this because of the language used and the incrimination's made. So much mis information has been bandied around and the truth has not even been breached with regards to how and what unions are and do.
Click to expand...

Unions make unreasonable demands and then strike if they don't get what they want. The more entrenched a union is the harder it is to replace them. Bringing in new employees means having an unskilled labor force initially. This increases overall costs in the form of quality and recruitment. However, if the employer is able to suck up these losses, then the costs will eventually go down and the union will prove unnecessary. Unions are more likely to work as a parasite than an organization that brings positive change.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
i was able to enjoy a more middle class childhood thanks in part to my parents' membership in a union, which helped them to get better benefits and compensation for their hard work. college would have been available to me even if i hadn't gotten the scholarships which paid for a good part of it. my GF is currently a member of a union, and has rights and benefits that i don't have. i could be canned for any reason or for no reason at all even if i do a great job. also, i have zero leverage to negotiate for anything, including basic working conditions outside of what is covered by OSHA. i'm a highly skilled scientist with many years of experience. if joining a union was even possible in my field, i would sign up in a second.
Click to expand...

Even if the seniority clause guaranteed that in the event of layoffs, you go first? Even if it made your contributions to and benefits from the union's pension fund was dramatically worse than your comrades with seniority? Even if you were required to pay a significant share of your family's premiums so that your comrades with seniority could continue paying absolutely nothing for it? You'd sign up in a second without actually reading the bargaining agreement or the union's constitution and bylaws? Some union contracts allow new members to get shat upon in order to desperately preserve grandfathered benefits for employees with more seniority, and as an individual within that union, you have near-zero leverage to negotiate for yourself, in fact you're not even allowed to try. Your communication goes through the union, and the union might not care about your minority voice.

Unions in my experience don't actually care about new membership. Some say they do, but their actual collective bargaining contracts constantly show otherwise.

calamity said:
I have zero experience working with Muni Unions, teacher's unions or those which represent professional athletes. I can only go by what I read about them. I would be interested in hearing about some of your personal experiences in that sector.
Click to expand...

Regressive bargaining, arguments based on demonstrably false information, refusal to agree to minor administrative fixes that have no financial or other impact to the union, make-work intended to bog down administration and finance under the guise of normal "requests for information," bargaining in bad faith, attempts to coerce the employer into arbitration when state law does not entitle the group of employees to arbitration, numerous frivolous grievances and unfair labor practice allegations, suing us for terminating an employee that assaulted a coworker. I could go on and on. The tactics are seriously sick and come with the absolute worst of intentions. And it's against a municipality that is not rich and does not profit from anyone being mistreated.

My first exposure to the insanity within the UAW and other American manufacturing unions came about during the late 1970's. I was a young co-op draftsman in a union machine shop located just north of Detroit during high school. If you asked me at the time what I thought, I would have replied that they must have written into their contract a clause stating that they are not required to actually work. It was that bad.
Click to expand...

I know it was. I grew up right near there.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Even if the seniority clause guaranteed that in the event of layoffs, you go first? Even if it made your contributions to and benefits from the union's pension fund was dramatically worse than your comrades with seniority? Even if you were required to pay a significant share of your family's premiums so that your comrades with seniority could continue paying absolutely nothing for it? You'd sign up in a second without actually reading the bargaining agreement or the union's constitution and bylaws? Some union contracts allow new members to get shat upon in order to desperately preserve grandfathered benefits for employees with more seniority, and as an individual within that union, you have near-zero leverage to negotiate for yourself, in fact you're not even allowed to try. Your communication goes through the union, and the union might not care about your minority voice.

Unions in my experience don't actually care about new membership. Some say they do, but their actual collective bargaining contracts constantly show otherwise.



Regressive bargaining, arguments based on demonstrably false information, refusal to agree to minor administrative fixes that have no financial or other impact to the union, make-work intended to bog down administration and finance under the guise of normal "requests for information," bargaining in bad faith, attempts to coerce the employer into arbitration when state law does not entitle the group of employees to arbitration, numerous frivolous grievances and unfair labor practice allegations, suing us for terminating an employee that assaulted a coworker. I could go on and on. The tactics are seriously sick and come with the absolute worst of intentions. And it's against a municipality that is not rich and does not profit from anyone being mistreated.



I know it was. I grew up right near there.
Click to expand...

I was lucky. I grew up in both Chicago and Detroit. So, I spent most of my teenage and early adult years in two of the most corrupt union centers in the US. I knew of Jimmy Hoffa long before he was a body people could never find.

My earliest experience with union corruption came at age-10. The father of a friend of mine was chief steward of the Teamsters local in charge of Chicago's convention center. He was sent to prison.

I've since read all about that Local. One trick they used was to bar new hires and junior members from the meetings whenever leadership issues were up for vote. Basically, they stacking the Hall with cronies. So the vote always went their way. One man ran that union Local with an iron fist for 30 years. And, then his son took over. :doh

No--they did not give a rat's ass about membership. It was all about maintaining control.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Even if the seniority clause guaranteed that in the event of layoffs, you go first? Even if it made your contributions to and benefits from the union's pension fund was dramatically worse than your comrades with seniority? Even if you were required to pay a significant share of your family's premiums so that your comrades with seniority could continue paying absolutely nothing for it? You'd sign up in a second without actually reading the bargaining agreement or the union's constitution and bylaws? Some union contracts allow new members to get shat upon in order to desperately preserve grandfathered benefits for employees with more seniority, and as an individual within that union, you have near-zero leverage to negotiate for yourself, in fact you're not even allowed to try. Your communication goes through the union, and the union might not care about your minority voice.
Click to expand...

yes, i'd join. i've been listening to right wing horror stories about unions since i was a right winger myself. i'm part of the non-legacy workforce which didn't benefit from a base of union represented workers. that status quo also shielded highly skilled non-union workers.

Neomalthusian said:
Unions in my experience don't actually care about new membership. Some say they do, but their actual collective bargaining contracts constantly show otherwise.
Click to expand...

i'd take my chances. being fired at a whim for any reason or no reason at all with no recourse is worse than that. "good job, you're fired" shouldn't be a thing that workers have to endure with no means of pushing back.
 
Helix said:
i'd take my chances. being fired at a whim for any reason or no reason at all with no recourse is worse than that. "good job, you're fired" shouldn't be a thing that workers have to endure with no means of pushing back.
Click to expand...

Can you quit at any time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom