• 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!

How many here belong a union in the public or private sector? Why? or Why not?

How many here belong to a union?

  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
Rocketman said:
Yep cattle. Public unions are a drain on the taxpayers and private sector unions drive up costs creating another hurdle in a global market. Why are people afraid to work on their own merit?
Click to expand...

Because these days employers don't seem to respect merit, mostly.... just the bottom line and nothing else.
 
Goshin said:
Because these days employers don't seem to respect merit, mostly.... just the bottom line and nothing else.
Click to expand...

I sure haven't found that to be true in my working career. The few employers I've had (I've been mostly self-employed) respected me; I found my concerns addressed; got perks I never asked for; got raises I both asked and didn't ask for; and was always promoted to exactly the position I had my eye on.

You strike me as that same kind of person, Goshin.
 
MaggieD said:
I sure haven't found that to be true in my working career. The few employers I've had (I've been mostly self-employed) respected me; I found my concerns addressed; got perks I never asked for; got raises I both asked and didn't ask for; and was always promoted to exactly the position I had my eye on.

You strike me as that same kind of person, Goshin.
Click to expand...

It USED to be that way. Once upon a time, in every job I worked, I was valued as an employee and my employer treated me like a human being and wanted me to stay and be happy.

Over the past decade something has changed. For the past five years I've been treated like a dog... not just a dog, a damn mongrel mutt, and I didn't do anything to deserve this. EVERYONE that works for my employer is treated like ****.

From what I hear this is becoming the common thing.
 
Rocketman said:
I totally agree, the two I belonged to protected the weakest members. Stronger more determined members were forced to carry these people, much like what we see today with the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

I did not know the Obama Administration was union. I was a member of a construction local the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Millwrights and a member of the United Chemical Workers of America I was also a plant maintenance superintendent for 25 years.There are good and bad in both union and non union workers. It's up to those in charge to make sure that any employee earns their pay. Skilled craftsmen and women are worth every penny they make, they spend four years going through apprenticeship school to earn their book and learn their trade.

The republicans are working hard to destroy the unions because they are afraid of organized workers, the old divided we fall united we stand, the republicans want to be in control so they break up the unions. Unions built this country, provided a safer work place, better working conditions, and a fair rate of pay for the membership
 
I have had a lot of experience working alongside union workers and I will never join a union nor work for a company that does not reward individual talent.
 
Sig said:
Nonsense. The biggest economic boom this country has ever experienced followed the rise of the labor unions. This was no mere coincidence.
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah. It's amazing what you can do when the rest of the industrialized world has been bombed to rubble, and you are the only manufacturer with a populace that hasn't been starved to death/shot at/burned out of their homes/watched their cities and factories turn into ash.

However, you may be interested to learn that you are also a bit off. Union membership peaked in 1945: the expansionary years of the mid 50's through the 1960's were taking place in the beginning of a long union decline. A decline that, not coincidentally, corresponded with the reintroduction of competition from abroad as other nations rebuilt their industrial bases. Incidentally, the growth from the 50's and 60's mostly was considered such a golden era because it contrasted with the previous era, which was marked by the growth of unions and the resulting depression that they helped to prolong.

The more money the workers earn, the more money they can spend. Labor unions force companies to do what they are unable to do on their own initiative as they compete against other companies, namely, pay an adequate wage to their workers (who are also consumers). Thus it is a win-win situation for everyone, that is until one company decides to outsource its labor to some third-world ****hole where unions are unheard of and workers can be exploited for pennies on the dollar. Then the other companies are forced to follow suit in order to survive.
Click to expand...

Ah. This is the magical theory of money, where the price of consumer goods do not include labor cost, and companies just get money from magic money trees.

In realityland, unfortunately, when you artificially increase the price of labor above it's market (supply/demand) value, you increase the price of the good or service being produced without increasing its' quality, meaning that the company that is doing the producing is going to be destroyed by the competition. Just as has happened to the US Auto Industry.
 
StubbornMoose said:
I have had a lot of experience working alongside union workers and I will never join a union nor work for a company that does not reward individual talent.
Click to expand...

I worked both as a union member "10 years " and as a company mechanical superintendent "25 years" I always felt that their should be a super mechanic rate or super employee rate that was awarded by supervision to union or non union workers who were pace setters. Men or women who made a real effort every day. The rate could be awarded and taking away if the individual employee work productivity fell off.
 
I don't know why everyone thinks union workers only work as fast as the slowest worker. The workers (at least with LIUNA) get in trouble for slacking, just like any other job, the supervisor will tell them to get to work. I guess all unions aren't the same.
 
Goshin said:
Because these days employers don't seem to respect merit, mostly.... just the bottom line and nothing else.
Click to expand...

That's because they think everyone is replaceable in this economy, especially if you work in the construction industry. It has been hit hard from the recession, at least it has here in MA.
 
ChrisL said:
That's because they think everyone is replaceable in this economy, especially if you work in the construction industry. It has been hit hard from the recession, at least it has here in MA.
Click to expand...

Construction is terrible. 20 years ago an American mason could make $20 an hour... and given that construction can be irregular work, he needed to be paid well.

More recently, an American concrete mason bid $7.50 an hour for a job... and didn't get it. He was underbid by a Mexican immigrant mason.

This sort of thing does not endear either employers or immigrant workers to blue-collar Americans. They're putting profits ahead of the well being of their fellow citizens.
 
Goshin said:
Construction is terrible. 20 years ago an American mason could make $20 an hour... and given that construction can be irregular work, he needed to be paid well.

More recently, an American concrete mason bid $7.50 an hour for a job... and didn't get it. He was underbid by a Mexican immigrant mason.

This sort of thing does not endear either employers or immigrant workers to blue-collar Americans. They're putting profits ahead of the well being of their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

OMG. That is horrible. Just horrible.
 
Goshin said:
Because these days employers don't seem to respect merit, mostly.... just the bottom line and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Not just the bottom line...the positive perception of political correctness is also a plus.
 
Goshin said:
Construction is terrible. 20 years ago an American mason could make $20 an hour... and given that construction can be irregular work, he needed to be paid well.

More recently, an American concrete mason bid $7.50 an hour for a job... and didn't get it. He was underbid by a Mexican immigrant mason.

This sort of thing does not endear either employers or immigrant workers to blue-collar Americans. They're putting profits ahead of the well being of their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

I don't know about masonry, but a lot of construction jobs are taken up by illegal immigrants too.
 
MaggieD said:
OMG. That is horrible. Just horrible.
Click to expand...


It is. Globalization is forcing American blue-collar workers to compete with workers in impoverished countries that think making $4,000 a year is big money. You can't support a small family on $4k a year in America.

Unless you live in a carboard shack and eat only white rice, and that sure as hell isn't anything like the American Dream.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't know why everyone thinks union workers only work as fast as the slowest worker. The workers (at least with LIUNA) get in trouble for slacking, just like any other job, the supervisor will tell them to get to work. I guess all unions aren't the same.
Click to expand...

They aren't. And where they're located matters too.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: yeah. It's amazing what you can do when the rest of the industrialized world has been bombed to rubble, and you are the only manufacturer with a populace that hasn't been starved to death/shot at/burned out of their homes/watched their cities and factories turn into ash.

However, you may be interested to learn that you are also a bit off. Union membership peaked in 1945: the expansionary years of the mid 50's through the 1960's were taking place in the beginning of a long union decline. A decline that, not coincidentally, corresponded with the reintroduction of competition from abroad as other nations rebuilt their industrial bases. Incidentally, the growth from the 50's and 60's mostly was considered such a golden era because it contrasted with the previous era, which was marked by the growth of unions and the resulting depression that they helped to prolong.



Ah. This is the magical theory of money, where the price of consumer goods do not include labor cost, and companies just get money from magic money trees.

In realityland, unfortunately, when you artificially increase the price of labor above it's market (supply/demand) value, you increase the price of the good or service being produced without increasing its' quality, meaning that the company that is doing the producing is going to be destroyed by the competition. Just as has happened to the US Auto Industry.
Click to expand...

The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - Salon.com,

With that lets move to the real problem that faced the UAW it was PPM "piss poor management" unions negotiate their wages and benefits if the companies involved paid more then they could and still make a profit then it was the company CEO's who were responsible, lets not stop there managements failure to upgrade their assembly lines, managements failure to produce a vehicle that was competitive with foreign manufacturers in things like dependability and gas mileage. Union workers assemble the vehicle they do not design it nor are they responsible for the reliability of the vehicle.
 
Goshin said:
It is. Globalization is forcing American blue-collar workers to compete with workers in impoverished countries that think making $4,000 a year is big money. You can't support a small family on $4k a year in America.

Unless you live in a carboard shack and eat only white rice, and that sure as hell isn't anything like the American Dream.
Click to expand...

I signed off and got to thinking about this.

We're so screwed up. I wouldn't be surprised (excuse my cynicism) if that guy and his family get Medicaid, food stamps, and other entitlements...plus gets back every penny he pays to the Federal government in the form of income tax. If he has children, he probably gets back several thousand dollars he never even paid in. Legal as pie.

OMFG. What are we to do?
 
MaggieD said:
I signed off and got to thinking about this.

We're so screwed up. I wouldn't be surprised (excuse my cynicism) if that guy and his family get Medicaid, food stamps, and other entitlements...plus gets back every penny he pays to the Federal government in the form of income tax. If he has children, he probably gets back several thousand dollars he never even paid in. Legal as pie.

OMFG. What are we to do?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Common sense seems to be as dead as Lincoln in DC.

International trade is supposed to be a net BENEFIT to your nation, not a way of crushing half the population into abject poverty... a little protectionism wouldn't be a bad idea.
 
EarlzP said:
The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - Salon.com,
Click to expand...

:) Complain all you want, it doesn't alter the fact that when you raise a price for something (like labor), you lower demand.

With that lets move to the real problem that faced the UAW it was PPM "piss poor management" unions negotiate their wages and benefits if the companies involved paid more then they could and still make a profit then it was the company CEO's who were responsible, lets not stop there managements failure to upgrade their assembly lines, managements failure to produce a vehicle that was competitive with foreign manufacturers in things like dependability and gas mileage. Union workers assemble the vehicle they do not design it nor are they responsible for the reliability of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

I love how the Unions utilize coercion, but it's managements' fault if they let them get away with it :roll:
 
Goshin said:
a little protectionism wouldn't be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be. Specifically, it would be a bad idea for those who have the lowest incomes, and are thus least capable of absorbing an increase in the cost of living.
 
Goshin said:
I don't know. Common sense seems to be as dead as Lincoln in DC.

International trade is supposed to be a net BENEFIT to your nation, not a way of crushing half the population into abject poverty... a little protectionism wouldn't be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I have said it a dozen times--US trade policy is based almost exclusively on the ability to peddle US cars overseas. Everything is always couched in terms of auto/GM exports if you pay close attention to it.
 
cpwill said:
Yes, it would be. Specifically, it would be a bad idea for those who have the lowest incomes, and are thus least capable of absorbing an increase in the cost of living.
Click to expand...

If it was carefully structured to protect the JOBS of working-poor Americans, it wouldn't.
 
Goshin said:
If it was carefully structured to protect the JOBS of working-poor Americans, it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Except that doing so is impossible. When you increase the cost of a good or service through protectionism you help (in the short term - in the long term everyone is harmed as growth and innovation are stunted) the 1% of the people who are involved in that industry - and not necessarily monetarily. Protected industries don't have to increase wages if labor is plentiful. Meanwhile you harm the 99% of the people who consume the product. In the meantime, you have also harmed the much poorer people from abroad who used to trade with you. Freeing trade has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last couple of decades. As Christians, we are obliged to care about all men as ourselves, not seek to screw over the truly poor to benefit "American workers".

Generally, however, the industries capable of winning government protection are those who are already well-heeled enough to purchase political influence. The younger, poorer businesses aren't able to buy a Senator or three, and so their membership is left in a world where the cost of living is increasing, but their income is remaining stagnant (or falling due to decreased economic growth).

Trade wars are wars that governments wage against their own people for the benefit of well-connected interests.


:) But hey. I see your sig - you don't gotta take it from me.

Tariff disaster offers a lesson on the folly of protectionism
By Thomas Sowell
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:lol: yeah. It's amazing what you can do when the rest of the industrialized world has been bombed to rubble, and you are the only manufacturer with a populace that hasn't been starved to death/shot at/burned out of their homes/watched their cities and factories turn into ash.

However, you may be interested to learn that you are also a bit off. Union membership peaked in 1945: the expansionary years of the mid 50's through the 1960's were taking place in the beginning of a long union decline. A decline that, not coincidentally, corresponded with the reintroduction of competition from abroad as other nations rebuilt their industrial bases. Incidentally, the growth from the 50's and 60's mostly was considered such a golden era because it contrasted with the previous era, which was marked by the growth of unions and the resulting depression that they helped to prolong.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being silly. Union membership may have peaked in 1945 but unions were at the zenith of their power and influence over the next 30 years.

We can both cherry pick our favorite theory for the Great Depression. Methinks it had a lot more to do with monetary contraction than artificially inflated wages. This could make for a very interesting debate in itself. Unfortunately, I do not have the time for it presently.

Ah. This is the magical theory of money, where the price of consumer goods do not include labor cost, and companies just get money from magic money trees.

In realityland, unfortunately, when you artificially increase the price of labor above it's market (supply/demand) value, you increase the price of the good or service being produced without increasing its' quality, meaning that the company that is doing the producing is going to be destroyed by the competition. Just as has happened to the US Auto Industry.
Click to expand...

We both know that competing companies are compelled to engage in a race to the bottom in regards to labor costs. Yes, lower labor costs translates into lower production costs which translates into lower market prices. Of course, chattel slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude, and subsistence wages will yield the lowest labor costs and thus the lowest market prices. So much for your supply/demand curve in regards to real world human morality, real world social stability, and real world politics. We have been through all of this already. Your way doesn't work. You can argue that management and labor unions need to be more cognizant of their symbiotic relationship. However, you cannot argue that collective bargaining is not necessary. It is very necessary. History attests to the fact.
 
cpwill said:
:) Complain all you want, it doesn't alter the fact that when you raise a price for something (like labor), you lower demand.



I love how the Unions utilize coercion, but it's managements' fault if they let them get away with it :roll:
Click to expand...

I do not mean to be disrespectful but you have no idea of what you are talking about labor is one part of product cost you forgot about quality and worker productivity. Again the UAW is not responsible for poor management decisions nor are they responsible for product quality or marketing . Foreign auto manufacturers kicked our butts they built a superior product to what was being built in America, better gas mileage, a more advanced better looking and more reliable automobile.

I was in management for 28 years IMO the majority of management could not get a thirsty horse to drink water, they have poor people skills and their marketing skills are worst then their people skills.

I am not nor was I ever a member of the UAW nor did i work in the auto industry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom