• 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 .
cpwill said:
Because it is in the interest of the union to do so. Folks who have a naturally contentious relationship with their employers are going to keep paying those union dues, and so unions have a vested interest in ensuring that folks have a naturally contentious relationship with their employer. Hence, it is in their interest to foster a sense of entitlement among their membership.
Click to expand...

That's bull. People join unions because they want better paychecks, better benefits and protection from their employers taking advantage of them. For MOST people, it has nothing to do with being contentious. Also, it is not a sense of entitlement to want to be treated fairly.

It's called a "Strike". Either You Do What We Say Or We Try To Destroy Your Business. In no other set of private negotiation is this allowed. If I wanted to purchase your home, and said that if you didn't lower your price by 10% I was going to keep anyone else from every buying it, you would laugh in my face. But, for some reason, we authorize and defend the practice with the same group of people who are major donors to one of the two chief political parties....
Click to expand...

This usually only happens when the employer goes against what was contracted. They have to live up to their end of the bargain, just like with any other contract.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
It's called a "Strike". Either You Do What We Say Or We Try To Destroy Your Business. In no other set of private negotiation is this allowed.
Click to expand...
So, when the business says "we'll pay you this, take it or leave it" that's just being nice because the workers shouldn't have the option to leave it? They shouldn't have the option to tell the world how much the business is willing to pay? They shouldn't have the option to protest said "offer"?


Seems to me like you're supporting the Wage Slave theory after all.
"You must work for Us and we'll give you the stipend We deem appropriate!" LOL!


Edit:
And you're wrong about it not being allowed in any other negotiations. The power in all negotiations is the ability to withhold something your opponent wants or needs. A steel mill is "destroyed" if it can't get metal ore and/or scrap. A retail store is dead if it can't purchase goods wholesale. So when the iron mine refuses to renew the old contract because the want more money for their ore, are they "trying to destroy" the steel mill? According to you, they are.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: alright. on an individual basis then, can you demonstrate that?
Click to expand...

Actually, no. We aren't talking about these people as individuals - we are talking about them as unions. So yes, comparable groups is the correct metric.
 
MoSurveyor said:
So, when the business says "we'll pay you this, take it or leave it" that's just being nice because the workers shouldn't have the option to leave it?
Click to expand...

The job belongs to the business. An apples to apples comparison would be if a business were to tell an employee "we will pay you this and you will take it or we will get all the other employers to put you on a blacklist and no one will hire you".

So when the iron mine refuses to renew the old contract because the want more money for their ore, are they "trying to destroy" the steel mill? According to you, they are.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect, the mill can go to another mine. The only way that the comparison is apt is if that particular mine is a monopoly, the way a union is.
 
ChrisL said:
That's bull. People join unions because they want better paychecks, better benefits and protection from their employers taking advantage of them.
Click to expand...

Naturally. Who said otherwise? Or is it your opinion that one cannot take money and power through coercion or the threat thereof?

For MOST people, it has nothing to do with being contentious.
Click to expand...

most people do not seek that, that is correct. It is simply in the best interest of unions to make sure that they find it nontheless.

Also, it is not a sense of entitlement to want to be treated fairly.
Click to expand...

It is a sense of entitlement to think that you deserve a set of benefits and income level Simply For Being Wonderful You, rather than for deserving it by earning it in a competitive manner. No one else owes you a "living" or any other kind of wage simply for showing up. Unions are famous for fostering precisely that first mindset - it is no little part of what destroyed the American auto industry.

This usually only happens when the employer goes against what was contracted. They have to live up to their end of the bargain, just like with any other contract.
Click to expand...

If the employer breaks a contract, we have a legal system designed for that. Strikes are usually designed to force an employer to alter compensation, not live up to current contractual compensation. Strikes are and remain coercive in nature.
 
MoSurveyor said:
No more so than the businesses they work for.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Businesses (in this country, at least) are built around mutually beneficial trade in which all parties concerned are left free to act as they please devoid of coercion.
 
cpwill said:
The job belongs to the business. An apples to apples comparison would be if a business were to tell an employee "we will pay you this and you will take it or we will get all the other employers to put you on a blacklist and no one will hire you".
Click to expand...
Really? First time I've seen an owner pay someone to take their property. You seem to have a very poor understanding of business.

And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if labor organizers, those trying to form a labor union, aren't treated just that way. I'm sure many have been blacklisted over the years - deemed "trouble-makers", no doubt.

cpwill said:
That is incorrect, the mill can go to another mine. The only way that the comparison is apt is if that particular mine is a monopoly, the way a union is.
Click to expand...
The mill can also attempt to find other skilled workers to run the furnace. If they can't, who's fault is that since the mill entered into previous union contracts voluntarily? What you're essentially crying about is guilds (unions) having power over companies somewhat equal to the power a company has over them. Boo-hoo.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
The mill can also attempt to find other skilled workers to run the furnace. If they can't, who's fault is that since the mill entered into previous union contracts voluntarily? What you're essentially crying about is guilds (unions) having power over companies somewhat equal to the power a company has over them. Boo-hoo.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Unions have even more power over workers than they have on the company. The unions can tie outrageously high union dues to employment, which is something required for their very livelihood. It is almost impossible in non-right to work states to get a job in certain career fields without having to join a union.

The fact that unions can force membership dues on someone is despicable. There is nothing about "negotiating collectively with an employer" that costs thousands of dollars a year per employee. The money is really primarily used to play politics and line people's pockets.

A union can work without making membership dues compulsory, we have many, many examples of this around the world. Our unions are just too lazy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Not quite. Unions have even more power over workers than they have on the company. The unions can tie outrageously high union dues to employment, which is something required for their very livelihood. It is almost impossible in non-right to work states to get a job in certain career fields without having to join a union.
Click to expand...
Just as employers can tie outrageously low wages to employment. I fail to see the difference.

RabidAlpaca said:
The fact that unions can force membership dues on someone is despicable. There is nothing about "negotiating collectively with an employer" that costs thousands of dollars a year per employee. The money is really primarily used to play politics and line people's pockets.
Click to expand...
Just as businesses play politics for their own reasons - to give them more power over their workers by restricting or eliminating a worker's options and politically influencing labor laws. And, yes, the owners are "lining their pockets" - the lower the wages the more lining they have. Again, I fail to see the difference between unions and companies.

RabidAlpaca said:
A union can work without making membership dues compulsory, we have many, many examples of this around the world. Our unions are just too lazy.
Click to expand...
Then they're relying on volunteer labor, which is still a cost to the workers even if it's not monetary. Still no joy for you - sorry.
 
cpwill said:
Naturally. Who said otherwise? Or is it your opinion that one cannot take money and power through coercion or the threat thereof?
Click to expand...

You posts imply that union members are ALL the same, as if union members aren't individual people.



most people do not seek that, that is correct. It is simply in the best interest of unions to make sure that they find it nontheless.
Click to expand...

See? Here you go again, talking about them as if they are not individuals capable of their own thoughts. :roll:


It is a sense of entitlement to think that you deserve a set of benefits and income level Simply For Being Wonderful You, rather than for deserving it by earning it in a competitive manner. No one else owes you a "living" or any other kind of wage simply for showing up. Unions are famous for fostering precisely that first mindset - it is no little part of what destroyed the American auto industry.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're describing most CEOs. :2razz: Most union employees are simply tired of being underpaid and under appreciated. After all, without employees, there would be no business, so yes the employees who show up to work are wonderful.

You are wrong about unions. In the LIUNA union, they discourage their workers from being lazy. Those guys give the whole union a bad name, and they hate those kinds of guys. Those are the guys who are passed over for good jobs. They are NEVER rewarded for being lazy. Just because some lazy people exist in unions, that does NOT mean that you can categorize an entire union based on those few.


If the employer breaks a contract, we have a legal system designed for that. Strikes are usually designed to force an employer to alter compensation, not live up to current contractual compensation. Strikes are and remain coercive in nature.
Click to expand...

The union tries to prevent this from occurring in the first place. This way poorer employees don't have to spend all of their money in legal battles against a legal monstrosity such as a huge corporation with multiple corporate lawyers.
Click to expand...
 
I think a lot of people don't like unions because they are a great equalizer between employers and employees. Some people just don't want employees to have ANY power over their circumstances at all for some reason. I wonder if some people actually DESIRE to have class poverty. It's not like union employees are making anywhere NEAR the pay of CEOs, so all of this bitching is for naught.
 
ChrisL said:
I think a lot of people don't like unions because they are a great equalizer between employers and employees. Some people just don't want employees to have ANY power over their circumstances at all for some reason. I wonder if some people actually DESIRE to have class poverty. It's not like union employees are making anywhere NEAR the pay of CEOs, so all of this bitching is for naught.
Click to expand...

Hey! I got 2 likes from the same person for this post. How did you do that MoSurveyor?
 
ChrisL said:
I think a lot of people don't like unions because they are a great equalizer between employers and employees. Some people just don't want employees to have ANY power over their circumstances at all for some reason. I wonder if some people actually DESIRE to have class poverty. It's not like union employees are making anywhere NEAR the pay of CEOs, so all of this bitching is for naught.
Click to expand...

Perfomance driven people have as much power as any union employee because they contribute to the bottom line.

People that can fog a water glass by breathing on it are what unions represent as a whole.
 
Rocketman said:
Perfomance driven people have as much power as any union employee because they contribute to the bottom line.

People that can fog a water glass by breathing on it are what unions represent as a whole.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, and it's not really surprising. You want to lump all the people who are union members as if they are all the same. Whatever dude. I know for a fact that you are wrong. There are many, many non-violent, hard-working union members who take as much pride in their work as anyone else.
 
ChrisL said:
That's your opinion, and it's not really surprising. You want to lump all the people who are union members as if they are all the same. Whatever dude. I know for a fact that you are wrong. There are many, many non-violent, hard-working union members who take as much pride in their work as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Right, actions speak louder than words.
 
Rocketman said:
Right, actions speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

Exactly. MOST union members do not do violence. :shrug: Of course there are bound to be some who do in just about any group.
 
ChrisL said:
You posts imply that union members are ALL the same, as if union members aren't individual people.

That is incorrect, you are choosing (willfully or not) to erect a strawman. I have family and friends who are union members :shrug: my assessment of unions is of them as a means of organization and of them as organizations.

See? Here you go again, talking about them as if they are not individuals capable of their own thoughts. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, what I said was:

cpwill said:
most people do not seek that [a contentious relationship with an employer], that is correct. It is simply in the best interest of unions to make sure that they find it nontheless.
Click to expand...

You see, if the workers in Local United 437 all think that they are roughly fairly rewarded for their labor, pretty much like their bosses, and get along fairly well with each other and with management, then they start asking questions. Questions like "Why am I sending X% of my paycheck every month to a union which, as near as I can tell, is not of corresponding benefit to me?". Unions thus have a strong incentive to ensure that workers do not think that they are fairly rewarded for labor and that they do not have good and trusting relationships with management. Because "Unions" =/= "All Workers Who Are Members Of Unions". Many of those members themselves feel that they are coerced. That's why so many public employees stop paying dues when they are given the freedom to choose for themselves.

Sounds like you're describing most CEOs. :2razz:
Click to expand...

:lol: it would not surprise me in the least to find that CEO's and Union leadership are very alike indeed.

You are wrong about unions. In the LIUNA union, they discourage their workers from being lazy. Those guys give the whole union a bad name, and they hate those kinds of guys. Those are the guys who are passed over for good jobs. They are NEVER rewarded for being lazy.
Click to expand...

Nor is it simple to fire them for it. Protection of the lazy, the incompetent, and the evil is, after all, simply part of making sure that "the workers interests are represented first". And yes, the unions absolutely foster a sense of entitlement - that is how you keep people convinced that They Always Deserve More And Evil Management Is Greedily Keeping It From Them.

The union tries to prevent this from occurring in the first place. This way poorer employees don't have to spend all of their money in legal battles against a legal monstrosity such as a huge corporation with multiple corporate lawyers.
Click to expand...

Unions aren't needed to enforce contract law. We have a justice system for that, and if something is spelled out in the contract, then the company is screwed. I know more than a couple of lawyers who would love to make the easy money that could come from a case like that.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
Unions aren't needed to enforce contract law. We have a justice system for that, and if something is spelled out in the contract, then the company is screwed. I know more than a couple of lawyers who would love to make the easy money that could come from a case like that.
Click to expand...
What contract? The one that says the company has all the power and the worker has none?


As for the "I've got friends in a union" - I must assume from your other comments those friends are lazy bastards that should be living on the street instead of taking up space that a "good" (read lower paid) worker should have. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd hang around with people like that.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
What contract? The one that says the company has all the power and the worker has none?
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of that contract. Could you cite it for me?

As for the "I've got friends in a union" - I must assume from your other comments those friends are lazy bastards that should be living on the street instead of taking up space that a "good" (read lower paid) worker should have. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd hang around with people like that.
Click to expand...

:roll: you know, you can always tell someone is losing a debate when they are forced to turn to ad hominem.
 
cpwill said:
I'm unaware of that contract. Could you cite it for me?
Click to expand...
Well that's the point, isn't it? Without unions there is no contract - except the one CEO's and their ilk get.



cpwill said:
:roll: you know, you can always tell someone is losing a debate when they are forced to turn to ad hominem.
Click to expand...
ad hominem --- like unjustly accusing someone of ad hominem??? LOL!

I'm sorry if you took the observation that you would hang out with lazy, entitled workers as a personal attack but it obviously wasn't. And you brought the subject up in the first place, not me. (BTW - how did that relate to the argument? Sounded similar to: "Some of my best friends are black!" when seen in racist arguments. LOL!) The poor references to union members simply paraphrase what you've already posted. I don't see a personal attack there, either. Do you have a confidence problem or something?
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Hey! I got 2 likes from the same person for this post. How did you do that MoSurveyor?
Click to expand...
NO clue. The board hiccuped about that time so I submitted again. (I guess that's why we're always told not to submit again when making CC transactions!) Oddly enough, the strip under that post shows "You and [ARG:2 UNDEFINED] like this." on my computer - but on my user page it comes up as me Liking it twice at the same time - very strange.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Well that's the point, isn't it? Without unions there is no contract - except the one CEO's and their ilk get.

ad hominem --- like unjustly accusing someone of ad hominem??? LOL!

I'm sorry if you took the observation that you would hang out with lazy, entitled workers as a personal attack but it obviously wasn't. And you brought the subject up in the first place, not me. (BTW - how did that relate to the argument? Sounded similar to: "Some of my best friends are black!" when seen in racist arguments. LOL!) The poor references to union members simply paraphrase what you've already posted. I don't see a personal attack there, either. Do you have a confidence problem or something?
Click to expand...

You know what? Never mind. :)
 
cpwill said:
You know what? Never mind. :)
Click to expand...
You can't reason with these people. They think we're trying to ban unions, which is ridiculous. Personally the only issue I have with it is that it can be made mandatory. People should certainly be able to associate with and pay who they please. They still have failed over and over and over again to give a real reason why something as awesome as they describe it is must be mandatory. Nothing says confidence in your ideals like making it compulsory.

Then there's always the "Well you can just go find another job in your completely unionized career field." BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom