• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Labor and Trade Unions Still Necessary in Our Economy?

Are Labor and Trade Unions Still Necessary in Our Economy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 49 55.1%
  • No

    Votes: 31 34.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 10.1%

  • Total voters
    89
I think the greatest complaint in private industry is the impact they have had on putting companies out of business, or at least in causing them to take measures to try and maintain the profitability demanded by investors.

In the public arena, they are a virus the public needs to address in some meaningful manner.

I disagree with your last statement. I think public employees get a bad rap. On the one hand, the benefits we receive aren't as generous as you may think. Furthermore, I've seen public employees (myself included) who work just as long and hard as anyone in the private sector, maybe even more. In any case, not all jobs can be performed or left to the private sector. If that were truly the case, I'm willing to bet you'd see so many corners being cut just to save a few pennies. And if allowed to make up their own rules...self regulate....that may benefit the private company's bottom line, but it doesn't do justice to the customer who discovers the shabby workmanship years later and has to pay out of pocket for costly repairs that could have been avoided had the job been done right the first time. Cut out your public housing inspector and see what kind of house/housing development you get once construction has finished.

As a public employee myself, I've seen my benefits greatly reduced while the cost of said benefits take a bigger and bigger junk from my earnings. In fact, where I work we've gone years WITHOUT a pay raise, many of us have performed the job of two or three people due to a mandated hiring freeze that's been in affect for years. And to put icing on the cake, many jobs that were once performed in the public sector have now been privatized and the quality of care/services aren't as good as they were when said care/services were being performed by public employees. I'm sure that in time things will smooth out, but for now it's been rough.

As for unions themselves - public or private - I think they do have a place in the workforce be it labor, manufacturing or service sector. A person can only stand for so long, bend over so far, lift so much, perform a repetitive task so many times without a break, take on so many duties before feeling overwhelmed and work so many jobs for inadequate pay in an attempt to have his/her survival needs meet and remain silent for so long before insisting that his voice is fairly heard. Take those things away and push the employee so hard and eventually the employee will fight back....or leave. One can only hope there are enough available hands to fill the void(s) left behind.
 
Last edited:
Maybe that is the experience of some, however, it was never my experience. I received regular pay raises and later opportunities to move up when working at a non-union place, but not at a union one.

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

I guess it comes down to what peoples experiences are. If you havent experienced any issues that is good. I actually would look into other systemes to take care of grievances and the workers if they are proposed but they seldom are.
 
I disagree with your last statement. I think public employees get a bad rap. On the one hand, the benefits we receive aren't as generous as you may think. Furthermore, I've seen public employees (myself included) who work just as long and hard as anyone in the private sector, maybe even more. In any case, not all jobs can be performed or left to the private sector. If that were truly the case, I'm willing to bet you'd see so many corners being cut just to save a few pennies. And if allowed to make up their own rules...self regulate....that may benefit the private company's bottom line, but it doesn't do justice to the customer who discovers the shabby workmanship years later and has to pay out of pocket for costly repairs that could have been avoided had the job been done right the first time. Cut out your public housing inspector and see what kind of house/housing development you get once construction has finished.

As a public employee myself, I've seen my benefits greatly reduced while the cost of said benefits take a bigger and bigger junk from my earnings. In fact, where I work we've gone years WITHOUT a pay raise, many of us have performed the job of two or three people due to a mandated hiring freeze that's been in affect for years. And to put icing on the cake, many jobs that were once performed in the public sector have now been privatized and the quality of care/services aren't as good as they were when said care/services were being performed by public employees. I'm sure that in time things will smooth out, but for now it's been rough.

As for unions themselves - public or private - I think they do have a place in the workforce be it labor, manufacturing or service sector. A person can only stand for so long, bend over so far, lift so much, perform a repetitive task so many times without a break, take on so many duties before feeling overwhelmed and work so many jobs for inadequate pay in an attempt to have his/her survival needs meet and remain silent for so long before insisting that his voice is fairly heard. Take those things away and push the employee so hard and eventually the employee will fight back....or leave. One can only hope there are enough available hands to fill the void(s) left behind.

I am sure their are individual exceptions, as you've detailed. However, at least in California, the gains in benefits and pay have led to Cities declaring bankruptcy, and dramatic cut backs on spending for a broad swath of necessary services.

There will always be enough hands to fill the void.

Private sector unions face the end of their jobs if their demands are unreasonable. With the exception of the UAW, they can control their own fate. In the public sector, such demands just land on the laps of taxpayers who don't have any say. That is a problem, and that is a very good reason to end public sector unions.
 
I am sure their are individual exceptions, as you've detailed. However, at least in California, the gains in benefits and pay have led to Cities declaring bankruptcy, and dramatic cut backs on spending for a broad swath of necessary services.

There will always be enough hands to fill the void.

Private sector unions face the end of their jobs if their demands are unreasonable. With the exception of the UAW, they can control their own fate. In the public sector, such demands just land on the laps of taxpayers who don't have any say. That is a problem, and that is a very good reason to end public sector unions.

Of course the taxpayers have a say mostly by the power of their vote for local/state representation, but before doing so "John Q Public" should first be well informed not only of the services their tax dollars provide, but also the effectiveness of those services to ensure their dollars are being well spent. Recent arguments against public unions have focused on the growing expenditure on health services, but your public employee provide so many more services. It's not simply a matter of public health services. Of course, the moment there's a pandemic or epidemic from some type of infectious disease or a food borne outbreak, the first place the public calls on will be your First Responders. But wait! You just voted for all those political nut-jobs who DON'T believe in vaccines, who declare the public employees waste your tax dollars and they serve no viable purpose the private sector can't provide.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that the moment a hospital gets a suspicion of a widespread health risk, the first place they call to coordinate their efforts throughout the community and with neighboring cities is your county Health Departments. But if John Q Public remains ignorant of the services and function these public agencies provide and continues to allow for these political privatization lapdogs, you'll wish you had public health services to fall back on.

Now, as for CA and (Detroit) MI being careless - or should I say lacking any active management - of taxpayer dollars, that's the fault of local management, i.e., city/county/state auditors and the like. Even when politicians make these "compromises" to provide benefits and/or salary (cost-of-living) increases to public employees, it's the job of the actuaries to do their job and ensure the numbers add up. Accounting gimmicks be damned!

It's far too easy to vilify public employees and the unions that represent them for "demanding" fair pay and benefits to meet the very same survival needs everyone else would otherwise insist on while painting them as "greed from below" or "wasters of taxpayer dollars", but the general public never stops to think about how much of this is just political theater versus how they benefit from the services they receive but barely even know about. All they need to hear in order to stir up their angst is "wasted taxpayer dollars" and suddenly everyone is up in arms. But like I said above, let a natural disaster, a pandemic/epidemic take place and see who you call to mitigate the problem.
 
Last edited:
Of course the taxpayers have a say mostly by the power of their vote for local/state representation, but before doing so "John Q Public" should first be well informed not only of the services their tax dollars provide, but also the effectiveness of those services to ensure their dollars are being well spent. Recent arguments against public unions have focused on the growing expenditure on health services, but your public employee provide so many more services. It's not simply a matter of public health services. Of course, the moment there's a pandemic or epidemic from some type of infectious disease or a food borne outbreak, the first place the public calls on will be your First Responders. But wait! You just voted for all those political nut-jobs who DON'T believe in vaccines, who declare the public employees waste your tax dollars and they serve no viable purpose the private sector can't provide.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that the moment a hospital gets a suspicion of a widespread health risk, the first place they call to coordinate their efforts throughout the community and with neighboring cities is your county Health Departments. But if John Q Public remains ignorant of the services and function these public agencies provide and continues to allow for these political privatization lapdogs, you'll wish you had public health services to fall back on.

When the demands of public unions are such that they are causing cities to go bankrupt, any suggestions about vital services ring rather hallow.

I think most people appreciate the services provided, but killing the provider doesn't help anyone. At this point, "killing the provider" seems to be of little care to the union negotiators.

As to this control via the vote thing, that is a rather cheap cop out. I can't write about other states and cities, but in California, union control is so pervasive, even a ban on the use of plastic bags had to be run by the union controllers before it was passed, against the publics will.
 
When the demands of public unions are such that they are causing cities to go bankrupt, any suggestions about vital services ring rather hallow.

I think most people appreciate the services provided, but killing the provider doesn't help anyone. At this point, "killing the provider" seems to be of little care to the union negotiators.

As to this control via the vote thing, that is a rather cheap cop out. I can't write about other states and cities, but in California, union control is so pervasive, even a ban on the use of plastic bags had to be run by the union controllers before it was passed, against the publics will.

A portion of my amended portion post #254 above:

Now, as for CA and (Detroit) MI being careless - or should I say lacking any active management - of taxpayer dollars, that's the fault of local management, i.e., city/county/state auditors and the like. Even when politicians make these "compromises" to provide benefits and/or salary (cost-of-living) increases to public employees, it's the job of the actuaries to do their job and ensure the numbers add up. Accounting gimmicks be damned!

Doesn't the city government right the rules on sanitary practices for city sanitation workers? And if they contract those services out, it's it the responsibility of the private entity to make and enforce those rules?

Again, this falls back on the city itself, not the unions you're complaining about. If the city can show it's more cost effective not to use plastic trash bags to collect garbage, they can make the appropriate changes and go with permanent bend inserts that can be removed temporarily to dispose of waste and subsequently replaced. Cleaning will then be an issue and since certain parts of CA has a water shortage...

My point is there are ways to resolve some of the problems you've eluded to, but the people you elect need to be smarter about it and not just insist on privatizing everything just for the sake of doing it. Of course, I'm sure some local or national distribution center or plastics manufacture is receiving a large tax incentive for ensuring those plastic bags remain in circulation. It's not profitable to said private company nor to a local economy to use a plastic container that never needs replacing. I mean, if you do that that plastics company will have to lay off workers.

I've heard all the arguments before. People just need to "do the math" and apply best practices and/or common sense solutions to resolve problems and not allow their emotions to override their judgment.
 
Last edited:
A portion of my amended portion post #254 above:

Sorry, blaming someone else is never going to fly in my book. One only needs to look at SB 400, and the lies and manipulation that public unions used to understand whose feet all this lay under.

David Crane: California's Pension Fiasco and the Great Nondisclosure of 1999 - WSJ

And then there are the daily crimes of the SEIU in the state.

Consider the corrupt In Home Support Services scam they continue to run here.

Fraud infects state in-home care program - Los Angeles Times

In Long Beach, CA, public employees refused to accept an offer to increase their individual benefits contribution by as little as @ $30/mo, which resulted in fire house closures, and cut backs on police protection.

I really don't think a story about protection from pandemics is going to go far when public employee unions have already demonstrated a willingness to shut down public services, and put the health and safety of people at risk.
 
All I can say is I'm sorry things seem to be going so bad in Cali. for yourself and others. Ever consider relocating to another state?
 
Maybe that is the experience of some, however, it was never my experience. I received regular pay raises and later opportunities to move up when working at a non-union place, but not at a union one.

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

That is complete bull****. Yes wages are usually set at union places, but have you ever been on a union construction road crew? Ever ran a jackhammer for 16 hours straight, ever shoveled concrete off a truck all day? If these people aren't motivated to work then I dont know what is. I assure you there are very few people in this world who could succeed at a retrofitting road crew. Same goes for Ironworkers. Think you have the balls to climb on a 6 inch wide beam of iron a couple hundred feet in the air? all while guiding thousands of pound beams into the location and then riveting them into place?

I hear people who've never done hard work in their life (or think they have and really haven't) talk about things they have no damn clue about.. There's lazy people at EVERY job, its not exclusive to unions.

I've worked on both, and if you don't pull your weight you are off the job. The false idea that you can just be lazy and succeed is right wing propaganda.
 
That is complete bull****. Yes wages are usually set at union places, but have you ever been on a union construction road crew? Ever ran a jackhammer for 16 hours straight, ever shoveled concrete off a truck all day? If these people aren't motivated to work then I dont know what is. I assure you there are very few people in this world who could succeed at a retrofitting road crew. Same goes for Ironworkers. Think you have the balls to climb on a 6 inch wide beam of iron a couple hundred feet in the air? all while guiding thousands of pound beams into the location and then riveting them into place?

I hear people who've never done hard work in their life (or think they have and really haven't) talk about things they have no damn clue about.. There's lazy people at EVERY job, its not exclusive to unions.

I've worked on both, and if you don't pull your weight you are off the job. The false idea that you can just be lazy and succeed is right wing propaganda.

Umm, no. I actually have working brain and was smart enough not to seek careers in such profession.
 
Umm, no. I actually have working brain and was smart enough not to seek careers in such profession.

But you do realize the need for people to fill those positions, right?

I just cant figure out why someone who's life isn't effected by union workers in any way, would be so opposed to them. How could you even form an opinion, you have no experience with them.
 
Last edited:
But you do realize the need for people to fill those positions, right?

I just cant figure out why someone who's life isn't effected by union workers in any way, would be so opposed to them. How could you even form an opinion, you have no experience with them.

No, I realize that such work needs to be done. However, it does not have to be done by people, It can be done by robots if they are more cost effective.

Everyone in the country is affected. Unions have a large impact upon the whole economy. If labor cost are too high and companies outsource or automate because of it, then it reduces other jobs, tax revenues and many other things. Those losses, especially tax revenue has to be made up by others, thus taxes have to be raised (unless the government gives up it's social welfare programs).

P.S. Thank you for the demonstration of how many on the left are ignorant of the widespread effects of leftist policy and the selfishness self-centered attitude that leads to acceptance of such ideas.
 
Last edited:
No, I realize that such work needs to be done. However, it does not have to be done by people, It can be done by robots if they are more cost effective.

Everyone in the country is affected. Unions have a large impact upon the whole economy. If labor cost are too high and companies outsource or automate because of it, then it reduces other jobs, tax revenues and many other things. Those losses, especially tax revenue has to be made up by others, thus taxes have to be raised (unless the government gives up it's social welfare programs).

P.S. Thank you for the demonstration of how many on the left are ignorant of the widespread effects of leftist policy and the selfishness self-centered attitude that leads to acceptance of such ideas.



I think you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

Where one business fails there will be others to take its place.

Unions have large impacts on the economy by paying their workers more money. A person who has more money, spends more money, thus stimulating the economy. I thought that was economics 101.


According to a January 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics report, workers who belong to a union typically earn higher pay than non-union workers doing the same kind of job.

Average mean salary of a union worker is $917 per week vs a non union worker at $717 a week. The union worker pays more in taxes than the non union worker therefor your tax revenue argument is completely false.

Most jobs union workers occupy cannot be done by robots. I don't know what world you live in but I would personally love to see a robot doing rebar work, or structural steel work on a skyscraper. These are all jobs that require actual humans.

You just don't like the fact that Unions generally support those on the left. That probably boils your blood that an organization can donate funds to a political party. Just like it boils my blood that corporations can donate unlimited funds to a political party. What you essentially want to do is remove the ability for the Democrats to get large sources of money from unions. Why not just repeal citizens united and get the money out of politics all together. Put everyone on a level playing field.
 
Last edited:
I think you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

Where one business fails there will be others to take its place.

Unions have large impacts on the economy by paying their workers more money. A person who has more money, spends more money, thus stimulating the economy. I thought that was economics 101.


According to a January 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics report, workers who belong to a union typically earn higher pay than non-union workers doing the same kind of job.

Average mean salary of a union worker is $917 per week vs a non union worker at $717 a week. The union worker pays more in taxes than the non union worker therefor your tax revenue argument is completely false.

Most jobs union workers occupy cannot be done by robots. I don't know what world you live in but I would personally love to see a robot doing rebar work, or structural steel work on a skyscraper. These are all jobs that require actual humans.

You just don't like the fact that Unions generally support those on the left. That probably boils your blood that an organization can donate funds to a political party. Just like it boils my blood that corporations can donate unlimited funds to a political party. What you essentially want to do is remove the ability for the Democrats to get large sources of money from unions. Why not just repeal citizens united and get the money out of politics all together. Put everyone on a level playing field.

Just once, it would nice if someone posting such nonsense looked at cost of living differences.

Cost of Living Calculator: Compare the Cost of Living in Two Cities - CNNMoney
Difference between Dallas and Milwaukee

Groceries1%less
Housing42%more
Utilities5%more
Transportation3%less
Health Care16%more

So, if your union in Milwaukee Wi you make 12% more but costs you the above difference in common expenditures. There is not that great of a difference between costs in TX vs WI, still more than salary difference. Check other cities that do not have right to work vs right to work, in most cases, cost of living in the right to work areas will be lower and more than covers the difference in salaries.

No, the union giving money to the socialist does not bother me since unions are one of Marx's tools for achieving socialism and then communism. Even socialist existing does not bother me. It is the socialist trying to force their crap down my throat that pisses me off.
 
Just once, it would nice if someone posting such nonsense looked at cost of living differences.

Cost of Living Calculator: Compare the Cost of Living in Two Cities - CNNMoney
Difference between Dallas and Milwaukee

Groceries1%less
Housing42%more
Utilities5%more
Transportation3%less
Health Care16%more

So, if your union in Milwaukee Wi you make 12% more but costs you the above difference in common expenditures. There is not that great of a difference between costs in TX vs WI, still more than salary difference. Check other cities that do not have right to work vs right to work, in most cases, cost of living in the right to work areas will be lower and more than covers the difference in salaries.

No, the union giving money to the socialist does not bother me since unions are one of Marx's tools for achieving socialism and then communism. Even socialist existing does not bother me. It is the socialist trying to force their crap down my throat that pisses me off.

Oil tax revenue subsidizes a lot of Texas's tax base.

Do you realize that union meetings are completely democratic? They vote on the direction and expenditures of the union. It's far better than the dictatorial situations you have at most private corporations.

Who is forcing anything down your throat? Does anyone anywhere have to take a union job if they do not want one? If you don't like unions ... stay the hell away from them. It's not that hard buddy..

are you just trolling me with that socialism/communism bull****? This country had damn near full unionization in the 1950's and 1960's. Nobody was screaming communism then. You my friend have watched far to much right wing bull**** propaganda and I'm going to end this conversation here because its obviously not going anywhere. I will keep stating facts and you will keep pulling talking points out of your ass.
 
Last edited:
Unions have large impacts on the economy by paying their workers more money.

That's not what they do. They coerce OTHER employers to pay THEIR employees more money.

A person who has more money, spends more money, thus stimulating the economy. I thought that was economics 101.

Liberal fantasy economics 101, maybe. It would be stimulative if, for example, unions were somehow able to cause everyone in economy to suddenly have more money. Short-term, that would definitely be economically stimulative. Inflationary too, but yes, stimulative. But when you form a labor cartel and coerce some employers to pay only the union member employees more money than the organizations customers, taxpayers, rate payers, etc. would like to, no, that is not economically stimulative. Ask the auto industry in Michigan if you don't believe me.

Average mean salary of a union worker is $917 per week vs a non union worker at $717 a week. The union worker pays more in taxes than the non union worker therefor your tax revenue argument is completely false.

And when you use a higher dollar number as the denominator of figuring out who is more productive, it results in the union workers being a worse deal on a dollar for dollar basis. Employers wouldn't voluntarily hire employees that are a worse deal if it weren't for the coercion involved in collective-bargaining.

You should also do a bit of research as to which employees are happier between union and nonunion workers in the same jobs. You might be surprised. :)

You just don't like the fact that Unions generally support those on the left.

I don't like public-sector unions in particular for the same reasons that Franklin Delano Roosevelt called them unthinkable and intolerable. Public-sector unions should be abolished nationwide.

Why not just repeal citizens united and get the money out of politics all together. Put everyone on a level playing field.

We can do that too.
 
Back
Top Bottom