What is it about unions that people don't understand?

[Joe Fields]

Or refuse to understand?

Or refuse to acknowledge, because it would interfere with their own personal, greedy agenda?


Do these southern senators think for a second that the average worker at a Toyota or Honda plant in the U.S. would be making an average of 24 dollars an hour, if it weren't for the union autoworkers?

Does anyone out here for a minute think that many NON UNION jobs in many industries wouldn't be paying what they do, if it weren't for unions? They may not make union scale, but what would many of these jobs pay, if there were no unions?

I worked for a time at a non union plant in Kansas City, that supplied doors to the Pontiac Firebirds that are built at the local GM plant. This was almost 20 years ago, and I made almost 10 dollars an hour putting armrests on door panels. Not bad pay for the midwest back then. I've worked a lot of blue collar jobs that paid well, some union, some non union, but I owe the unions, because I know what this country was like, before organized labor, and I firmly believe that many of the non union jobs I've had wouldn't have paid nearly the wages were it not for unions. Unions have had a way of lifting many people's wags. I also have a strong suspicion of what it will be like, once unions vanish, and it looks like it could happen.

In general, I'm not a violent man, but if I could, I'd slap down every one of those bloviating senators who voted against the bailout.

[SharonAnn]

1. Corker is for capital, not labor. He's protecting VW's right to have a low-wage non-union workforce

As long as unions exists, VW has to pay wages higher than they want to pay. Bust the unions, then wage rates drop, and drop, and drop.

[DemoTex]

18. VW (BMW, MB), ironically, fleeing IG Metall (German labor union)

Germany's IG Metall is the largest manufacturing workers' labor union in Europe. Union busting ain't just for GOP cretins anymore. Union busting is part of the global economic plan. Economic justice is fast becoming a relic. Verb sap!

[Selatius]

2. I think the simple fact is Americans have forgotten what it was like before unions were around.

Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Historic NY]

4. servitude.....

I worked in public service union w/o it we wouldn't ever gotten raises or benefits from local government. We constantly fought tooth & nail for every damn dime. First they came for the UAW next thing it will be contruction unions, teachers, nurses, cops, fireman, sanitation workers, etc, etc. W/o unions we might as well go back to the 19th century.

[CTyankee]

55. AFSME and SEIU are strong unions because they aren't vulnerable to outsourcing.

They will be the only two bastions of union strength left if we let UAW go down with the auto companies. We must strengthen the unions of electricians and other nonfactory, nonoffice workers as well. After all, we still need people to DO things in our country.

what we are seeing is a race to the bottom. Hopefully, the incoming Obama administration can stop that race by being supportive of unionizations all across the professions and regions. Get tough on union busters, really go after them. Pass legislation strengthening our labor laws related to joining and being a member in unions.

this is a hugely important issue for our economy...

[Historic NY]

68. Hey I'm retired UNION & I VOTE ALWAYS.....

I was a V.P., delegate and charter member of our local. This is nationwide from the police & fire station to the factory floors to the nurses stations and manufacturing floors, coal mines, iron workers hall, electrical, masons, laborers, etc.. we either stick together or die.

GO UNION we are AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joe Fields]

15. congress has a very convenient and quite fallible memory.

[AndrewP]

16. Perfectly said

[hfojvt]

39. before unions were around was the 1870s

back then most Americans were small farmers or independent tradesmen. Even back in the 1960s and 1970s there were many more farmers than there are now. Also, many worker issues are now regulated legislatively - the workweek, worker safety, overtime, child labor, minimum wage, etc.

[gollygee]

52. Yeah but those worker issues came about largely as a result of unions

And there have already been attacks on overtime pay. I'm thinking child labor is safe, and worker safety at least for the most part, but I'm not sure about overtime and the workweek. And there are lots of people who would love to do away with minimum wage laws. You can't trust that we'll always have those protections.

[hfojvt]

66. actually the minimum wage gets done away with periodically

simply by not raising it. I shoulda thought of that. It's $3 or $4 an hour lower than it was in the 1960s or 1970s even today.

[Two Americas]

63. misleading

The struggle against entrenched power and wealth by Labor predates the Robber Baron era, to say the least. Slavery involved agriculture, and the struggle against slavery and the organized Labor movement are closely aligned. Many observers made that connection - between freedom, free Labor, and emancipation - right from the beginning of European settlement here.

Worker issues are regulated legislatively because organized labor fought for those things.

[hfojvt]

65. not completely because organized labor did it

because working people did it.

[eilen]

80. Those regulatory worker issues

get overlooked whenever possilble without union workers filing grievances. Contractors and managers often overlook safety issues until something "happens". Walmart continually broke the law in wage theft until enough workers blew the whistle and banded together to sue them. Laws are not enough and a government who does not fund their regulatory agencies does no regulation. Our Dept. of Labor is joke, it is like "the Ministry of Peace" .

[underpants]

86. That's no accident

The Chamber of Commerce types through the Republicans have had a coordinated campaign to not only get rid of unions but erase the memory of them for a long time.

This is part of the basis for the false uproar about illegal immigration. We are one of the few countries/cultures that have allowed ourselves to basically erase organized labor from our memories. Everywhere else in the world there is an active or at least well known labor element in life and politics --WE have been convinced that this is "class warfare" (while idolizing the "Masters of the Universe"). If the "illegals" are able to come out in public as a group they might just organize and have both a death hold on the economy but expose everyone here as fools.

[MichiganVote]

3. They don't understand the concept of organized labor vs. disorganized labor that gets the shaft.

[notesdev]

21. It's not like it used to be

There are many laws that protect non-union workers, laws which didn't exist in the heydey of unionization. Being non-unionized is nowhere near as vulnerable a position for workers as it used to be. Today everyone has the benefits that used to be exclusive to unionized workplaces due to this safety net of regulation that applies to all employers.

One thing unions need to recognize is that they can't be so aggressive and so demanding that you end up putting the employer out of business. Do that, and all the workers end up on the unemployment line, like we are seeing in Detroit. The UAW in particular went way overboard - this "jobs bank" program is a particularly obscene example - and now is refusing to make the compromises necessary to keep the people who pay the union workers' paychecks in business. Other unions recognize that the UAW has been unreasonable, which is why there is so little support for them out there.

Being pro-labor and pro-union are not necessarily the same thing anymore. Unions to survive need reasons to be relevant, now that all the protections that the movement were created to put in place have become commonplace. Being pro-labor, if a union forces me to choose between the prerogatives of the union as an organization and keeping the workers employed, it is a very easy choice.

[checks-n-balances]

23. What about the multi-millionaire CEOs at the top of these corporations?

You know, the ones who walk away with the mega-bonuses as their companies decline or go under? The bonuses that could have gone to worker wages or pensions?

Contrary to what you're saying, I thought that the UAW was willing to negotiate.

Nobody should ever forget that some union workers lost their lives to be able to have a five-day workweek, a foreign concept until that time. What we now know as the "weekend" is thanks to them, and we could lose it again.

And for most of the past century the anti-union propaganda outlets did an awfully good job of convincing the general public to blame the unions, just as the general public subtly blames the 'little guy' for not getting tricked down on enough.

The Republican Noise Machine is still as powerful as ever...

[notesdev]

26. CEO behavior was excessive

and many of them wrought their own ruin as a result. They are no example to follow.

[erinlough]

24. Talk to anyone living in a right to work state

I don't believe your premise that new laws protect workers. Most new laws undermine any rights the workers had. An example from my own life is the erosion of sick day pay. Now companies can insist that the worker use his vacation days instead of providing sick days. Include also the practice of including a letter the employee must sign that states the employer has the right to let you go with no notice and have you escorted out of the building using security guards. Workers are routinely treated like the enemy regardless of if they are in a union or not. Are unions unreasonable to ask for human treatment from employers? I think not.

[notesdev]

25. I am in such a state

And I've worked under those conditions or less generous ones my whole life, and not felt abused for it. I work, I get paid, I don't work, I don't get paid. Seems like a pretty straightforward arrangement. Some employers have offered sick days/vacation days, others haven't but have paid more for the days I did work instead. In my industry there's no such thing as a job where you can't be escorted out by security on the spot - consumer groups would scream bloody murder if a potential security threat was allowed continued access to systems.

I just took a new job a couple of weeks ago, so I've had very recent exposure to the kinds of things employers offer these days. Everyone offers health care, optical, dental, sick days, vacation days, 401(k) programs, and life insurance. By law I am protected from discrimination, allowed paid maternity leave, am entitled to a safe workplace, and all sorts of other protections. These aren't the 1920s anymore.

What some unions demand these days are privileges I could never dream of having, and it wouldn't even occur to me to ask. We've come a long long way from the days of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. They certainly have no right to demand these things at the expense of people who don't have them.

[CreekDog]

27. name a country with a high standard of living with weaker labor laws and unions than the USA

and don't say anything else until you do.

maybe we can set the record straight here.

wealthy countries with high standards of living for most people have:
strong labor laws
strong unions
universal healthcare
strong social safety net

our country is falling behind in all of those as is our standard of living.

i'm glad YOU are content with things the way they are.

did you realize that the success or failure of the country is not simply measured by the quality of your contentment? :eyes:

[notesdev]

35. False argument

There are plenty of countries that have those things and have lower standards of living than we do. The Soviet Union had every single one and their standard of living never got close to ours. The reason wealthy nations tend to have those things is because they can be afforded, not because those things are a cause of wealth.

[hfojvt]

40. talk about a false argument though - bringing the Soviet Union into it

First, because I am not sure they were some kind of union paradise, and second because they were playing catch-up from the moment of their existence and were also hit hard by world wars I and II.

[Two Americas]

47. other way around

First came hard-won freedom for Labor from the predations of the few, from unregulated capital, then came the prosperity. The overthrow of rule by the British Crown Corporations, the overthrow of the slave power, the overthrow of the rule by the Robber Barons, and then the New Deal. Each of these led to wealth and prosperity, they were not the result of wealth held by the few.

Then there are countries which were once fabulously wealthy, such as colonial Spain. That wealth - stolen wealth - did not produce prosperity, did it? Quite to the contrary.

The wealthier the ruling class, the less prosperity. The stronger the people, the workers, the greater the prosperity.

You are defending and promoting the core and foundational principle of the political right wing, of the aristocracy; the authoritarian and ant-democratic point of view.

[DainBramaged]

90. Talking points, talking points talking points and not from around here

[Two Americas]

29. you must be kidding

"Everyone offers health care, optical, dental, sick days, vacation days, 401(k) programs, and life insurance. By law I am protected from discrimination, allowed paid maternity leave, am entitled to a safe workplace, and all sorts of other protections."

How do you explain the millions of people who do not have these things that "everyone offers?"

[fascisthunter]

32. The MSM and Right Wing Propaganda is Powerful Koolaid

[Two Americas]

34. surprising

The right wing point of view has thoroughly infiltrated the thinking of many Democrats.

It certainly is becoming more and more clear every day just where people stand.

[mac56]

41. "Everyone offers health care, optical, dental, sick days..."

"...vacation days, 401(k) programs, and life insurance. By law I am protected from discrimination, allowed paid maternity leave, am entitled to a safe workplace, and all sorts of other protections."

Uhhh...where does "everyone" offer that?! Not in my town.

[Two Americas]

28. point by point

The degree to which non-union workers are in "nowhere near as vulnerable a position for workers as it used to be" because of "this safety net of regulation" is the degree to which organized Labor fought for those things - for all workers. You benefit from organized Labor, in other words, and then turn around and say that because of that unions are not important.

The idea that "unions are too agressive" and that they "put the employer out of business" is a Republican talking point.

"Being pro-labor and pro-union are not necessarily the same thing" is not a new idea. It has always been used by anti-Labor zealots. It has no more validity today than it ever did. It is a way to speak against workers while pretending you are not.

Unions are not to blame for loss of jobs. Those controlling the resources and making the decisions are.

[notesdev]

38. Ideology is no substitute for economics

Why don't you go study exactly why US auto companies are up shit's creek and why foreign companies making cars in the US are not in trouble. By far the largest component of the difference are the obligations the companies made to the unions. You can rehearse talking points all you like but it doesn't change the bottom line that labor costs are the reason why US auto manufacturers are bankrupt. Every one of the major components of that cost - inability to lay off employees, health care costs, pension costs - relate directly to UAW demands. Workers in non-unionized plants are not mistreated and not living in poverty and they will still have jobs after the US auto industry dies.

[mac56]

42. "By far the largest component of the difference...

"...are the obligations the companies made to the unions."

Bullshit. By far the largest component of the difference are the concessions, handouts, subsidies, supports, and sweetheart deals made to the foreign auto companies by the states and municipalities (primarly Southern).

[Ikonoklast]

44. Reality. Here's some for you.

As the UAW pushes to organize Toyota's U.S. workers, a leaked memo from Toyota's head of North American engineering and manufacturing says Toyota's U.S. wages are growing faster than its profits and that $300 million in wage cuts are needed for fiscal 2011. Meanwhile, two fired Toyota workers have denied leaking the embarrassing memo.

It's easy to see why Toyota wanted the 2006 memo kept under wraps. UAW organizers have pounced on the memo — which was authored by Seiichi Sudo, president and CEO of Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America — saying it means more temporary workers taking jobs from full-time $25-an-hour workers at Toyota's North American plants. Not that it needed to be said — it isn't hard to imagine the conversations on the shop floor at Toyota factories across the U.S.

Those conversations are also likely to touch on the treatment the two fired workers said they received from Toyota. Noel Riddell and Manuel Eade, who call themselves union supporters, were accused of leaking the memo (partly because they reportedly had shown it to management) and asked to resign. They refused and opted for a peer review, which they say cleared them. Nevertheless, the two Georgetown plant workers were sacked on 8 February.

It's hard to know for sure what effect all this will have on Toyota's efforts to quash UAW organizing efforts, but it's safe to say it won't help. And it sure does vaporize the warm and fuzzy "we're so American" glow being spun by Toyota marketers to dampen backlash over the company's dizzying rise in the U.S. auto market.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/04/leaked_memo_and.html

It will eventually happen to you, too. And you'll wonder who will be there to help, but with your libertarian mind-set, you are on your own, pal.

[Two Americas]

46. thaty won't fly anymore

Dismissing people's ideas by labeling them as "ideology" and then claiming that ideology somehow trumps reality for the people you disagree with is an age old and unsupportable argument for defending the wealthy and powerful few and suppressing and intimidating dissident voices.

It is insulting to claim that I am "rehearsing talking points" and that is not something you can support.

I welcome the debate with you on this, and the days when people would be run off or cowed by your sneering and unsupportable statements, by smearing and making personal attacks, are over.

You claim that "labor costs are the reason why US auto manufacturers are bankrupt." I think you need to defend that statement. I am going to point out that it is entirely inconsistent with any political view other then the extreme right wing, and that it is a open contradiction of and assault on the traditional principles and ideals of the organized labor movement and the Democratic party.

You are free to take an anti-Democratic party and an anti-Labor point of view, of course. But let's not kid ourselves about this. People are waking up, and these "well rehearsed talking points" you are throwing at us have lost their power. Come out from behind them and debate honestly and in the open.

[Joe Fields]

73. just a personal observation, but you are displaying right wing talking points,

and, with so few posts it does make some of us wonder....

[notesdev]

75. For your own sake you'd better think it over some more

None of what I have said has anything to do with right wing or left wing. These are simple academic disciplines, basic math and accounting. Any person who does the math will come to the same conclusions. While I don't have the time to disabuse every one of this swarm of protestors of their closely-held but fatally flawed notions, I will point out that if you find the results of the basic accounting as to what are the expenses of these industries and why they are non-competitive to be part of your ideological opposition, you are in huge trouble and are going to have an enormously difficult time surviving over the next few years. It's time to pull heads out of the sand and learn to add and subtract.

With that said, I'll go back to the Economy sub-forum where people seem to have a better understanding of economic issues and I can discuss things without being tagged as an enemy.

One last thing... if the 700+ posts I have is "so few"... you guys have WAY too much free time on your hands.

[Joe Fields]

76. I saw nothing but talking points in the post I addressed

What makes you think that Toyota and Honda don't have legacy costs? They have the same obligations as their counterparts. The only difference is that GM has been operating here several decades longer than Honda and Toyota. Toyota has a little over 300 retirees here in the US and Honda a little over 3,000. And General Motors? 400,000 plus.

I think you picked the wrong guy to debate. I don't use talking points. I bring a shitload of facts to the table.

Workers make cars. Management is supposed to make a profit. If GM, Ford and Toyota are basically equal in market share, then what does that say where the problem lies, since the only real costs that are out of line are 17 percent more for healthcare to retirees? Bottom line, the fault lies with the management and not the unions.

[notesdev]

77. What Toyota and Honda dont have

among other things, are union contracts that force them to pay 90% of salary to laid off workers. The upshot of which is that as long as those contracts are binding, US auto companies cannot adjust to the economic downturn, and cannot stay in business. This means that any bailout will at best push the day of reckoning back a few months at the rate those companies are losing money.

What the industry needs is bankruptcy and restructuring, otherwise there will soon be no industry and no jobs for anyone involved. Everyone in that failed industry, from the top management to the lowest end worker to the bondholders, is going to have to accept some sacrifice in order to continue to make a living. Too many promises which cannot be kept have been made.

I don't see any offers of sacrifice being made by anyone. I don't see the management offering to resign in disgrace, as they should. I don't see the UAW putting any offers on the table to help reduce costs to a sustainable level. All I see are a lot of people willing to blame anyone but themselves for the current state of affairs and demanding someone else rescue them from the consequences of their own actions. It's not like this just suddenly happened out of the blue... these companies have been in deep trouble for many years.

[Joe Fields]

79. GM doesn't have the jobs bank anymore.

Quit making the unions the center of this fight. The union has made several major concessions, but then, you probably won't be happy until they are abolished. Have you no sense of history?

[notesdev]

82. As of December 3rd 2008

the UAW 'agreed to suspend' the jobs bank. So, 11 days ago. No word on whether any actual action has been taken nor if it is really a binding commitment at this point. Forgive me if I'm not convinced by last-minute concessions that appear to be designed to get a bailout passed rather than to secure the long term health of the company, and by extension the long term availability of jobs for their members.

As recently as last year, senior UAW officials were quoted as saying they would 'go down fighting'. Well, they got their wish.

GM's corporate bonds were relegated to junk in 2005. So with three years head start, the lot of them - management and union combined - could not figure out how to put together a sustainable business. Why should this kind of self-serving obstinacy be rewarded with a bailout, especially when there's still no plan in place that could have them in a position not to be back at the begging cup in 3-4 months needing another? With all the things you could do with $15-70 billion, this would appear to be one of the least productive and least effective ways to spend money. Off the top of my head I can name several ways to spend that amount of money which would be much better for American workers.

[DainBramaged]

92. So are you an economic programmer for a Japanese auto company come to wish us well?

[Trajan]

95. Fatally flawed my ass ...

Your assertions are wholly fallacious ....

One only need to look at the history of US auto manufacturing to see that; even WITH 'highly paid union workers', they made OODLES of profits during the economic good times .... There is ample evidence that investors do well when workers do well ....

If you come in here and preach an obviously libertarian viewpoint .... expect to get hammered ...

I am guessing the economy 'sub-forum' you speak of is a pit of libertarian vipers ??? .... Preachers of the Laissez Faire free markets, like yourself ? ....

Well ... DONT expect a free ride in here ..... If you are going to preach a libertarian line, you are going to catch serious flack here .....

And rightly so .....

[DainBramaged]

91. After the US Auto industry dies, really

Who will be left to buy the overpriced Transplants, computer programmers out of work because the house of cards collapses and the Transplants pull out because business doesn't justify building cars here any longer?


You really are a vile human being, vile.

[Trajan]

94. This is complete bullshit ....

US auto manufacturers are going bankrupt (they are NOT yet bankrupt, as you claim) because no one is buying enough of their products and their expenses exceed their revenues .... They are operating at a loss ....

But UAW workers can buy cars, because they have the income ... Union workers aren't within the sector who cannot afford to buy cars ....

It is the NON-union sector ... those you have championed on this thread, that cannot afford to buy cars (or anything else) that are 'bankrupting' the US auto manufacturers ....

Workers that are paid well spend well .... Workers that get squeezed by your laissez faire, libertarian philosophy cannot spend ANYTHING because they are already cutting items out of their budgets that they simply cannot afford any longer ....

Frankly, your glib and superior responses on this issue is a tad frustrating for those of us in this PROGRESSIVE, LIBERAL, DEMOCRATIC forum .... I saw in your profile that you claim to be a 'labor democrat', but frankly, I see none of that in your comments .... quite the opposite ....

I repeat: If ALL workers made the same level of income as UNIONIZED auto workers, cars would be flying out of the showrooms right now ....

[annabanana]

36. "have become commonplace" . ??

Do you really think that a single one of those protections would have become "commonplace" without the Unions putting up a knock-down drag out fight?

Dream on.

[SharonAnn]

49. And what "laws that protect non-union workers" would those be? If they existed, and those

were the only redress people had, then individuals would have to sue large corporations which would involve inordinate amounts of money and time for the individual worker. Not at all practical.

No, there really aren't any laws that protect the non-union worker without that worker filing suit, and even then they often lose.

[MichiganVote]

60. Your arguments smell like George Bush and his cohorts. Sorry, not interested.

[Joe Fields]

71. You want to go back to the days when you have 12 hr. workdays,

six days a week, no vacations, no pensions, no sick days, no health insurance, no safety regulations, etc..., then allow the unions to die off. I guarantee I can predict the future, buddy and it won't be pretty. Hell, you'll be lucky if you even have a fucking job.

[DainBramaged]

89. that they can't be so aggressive and so demanding that you end up putting the employer out of busine...

Really? You think that Unions are so demanding they put business under? So you believe in illegal immigration to displace blue collar workers so "business" doesn't go under??


There is fair, and there is greed. If employers want to make a profit, they need workers, and if they think that making a profit excludes the workers, than we're in China or Bangladesh.

Your premise is just wrong.

[Realityhack]

51. Yes they do.

Surveys show workers would rather have 'collective bargaining agreements' with management but the same people will say no to 'unions'. There is a huge negative connotation to the word. But a lot of people understand the underlying concepts.

[MichiganVote]

59. "A lot people"...."surveys show"....words that are straight out of the repub. playbook.

The only people who have a "huge negative connotation to the word", union, are the dirty employers who lie, cheat and steal from their employees. Good employers don't need a union because valuable employees feel valuable.

[cprompt]

5. I for one have no concept of the benefits

growing up in the South (MS) and working the majority of my life in TN, where all you hear from any company is anti-union, but if you don't ever feel you were treated poorly plus you have a good living. That's one huge thing that's missing from this discussion. $35/hr in MI is the exact same thing at $24/hr in MS when you look at cost of living. $50k/year here gets you a 2000+ sq ft home well within your price range as well as homes in an area with good schools and good opportunities.

For me never having been in a union, never having been around a union environment, living in this area making what I make is obscene. So it's hard for me personally to understand the true value of it. As someone who has never been exposed to it, and with the right wing so firm down here, all you hear is how unions bust companies due to greed, and the quote example after example of how you see the only major companies in financial trouble that are middle class jobs are the union shops (Auto/Airlines/Manufacturing/etc).

Seeing as there is minimal to zero union presence in my town (Memphis) and the jobs I've worked pay well, the environments are good, I just have a hard time seeing how unions help. Call me crazy or anti-labor or whatever, but here we aren't raised on the notion that just because you work for a company for 10 years means you get lifetime retirement, lifetime health, all paid for by the employer. It's taught here that all of that is on you and you alone.

[ogneopasno]

6. You have weekends and overtime laws that apply to you. Those come from unions.

You've got some pretty sweeping statements going on, friend.

What's your occupation?

[cprompt]

11. no sweeping statements

just life as i've seen it. none of my family for the 4 generations I know of their employment has ever been employed by a union and all of us had weekends. I work in software sales, more specifically, Payroll/HR/Finance software so I am very well versed on the laws regarding payroll. I take my talents to the highest bidder the same way a company takes its labor to the lowest, at the end of the day we are all trying to make a profit, union or not.

All I'm saying is living in an area with absolutely no union presence, I don't see the benefit. I wasn't ever lead to believe that a company is supposed to pay for my retirement/health the remainder of my days because i worked for them for 10-15 years. That's my responsibility so I plan accordingly.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Your state has no minimum wage

the unemployment rate is at 7%. That is number 37 out of 50, btw.
Poverty rate at 14.8- not bad for the region, but still above the national 12.5 rate.
High School Graduation among whites is at 60% and among African Americans at 40%.

[Two Americas]

33. that is fine

There will be those who side with and defend management, and oppose Labor. Let's not deceive ourselves about this, however.

You are arguing the libertarian free market right wing position, where each person sells their talents to the highest bidder, every person is forced to be a business person on the open market, where the few prosper, and we don't worry about the many who do not. We tell ourselves then that we are clever and successful, and that those who suffer are stupid, lazy or immoral. This is the core, the foundation, of the Republican party program.

[annabanana]

37. Just exactly WHO do you think INVENTED the "weekend"?

Do you think that it was just something that the business owners GAVE the workers out of the goodness of their own hearst?

You really need to do some reading.

[hfojvt]

43. with no unions though, you aren't gonna see the benefits

You inflate the pension benefits too. You know darn well that somebody cannot start working for the UAW at age 20 and retire at 35. In my experience jobs with good benefits are rare and hard to get. I worked at a union plant, even, in two different jobs with no benefits and there was some talk of unions at a third plant where I also worked with no benefits. Jobs with benefits are a good thing though, and unions provide them for many workers. They provide leverage for the working class. They also are a lobbying group for worker-friendly legislators and worker-friendly laws.

[readmoreoften]

53. You have weekends because UNIONS DEMANDED THEM.

What? Do you think business owners just decided that livable wages were just "good business practice"? No. Union members died fighting to popularize the 8 hour day and weekends. And now that unions aren't 'popular' what do you see? People working through the weekend. I hear "I haven't had a day off in two weeks" pretty regularly.

[Pithlet]

70. You don't see the benefit?

You don't see the collapsing economy here? The growing unemployment? Fed Ex has been laying people off and is getting ready to lay off a whole bunch more. Just for starters. Have you been paying attention? Look what's happening to Covingnton, just to our norht. They just lost almost their entire jobs base recently. What alternate universe are you living in?

[defendandprotect]

9. No retirement benefits..? Go see "Sicko" when you have a chance...

[Pithlet]

69. Yeah. I live in Memphis, too.

You're full of it.

[eilen]

83. Interesting

I have family in Nashville and lived in TN for a short time and I couldn't wait to get back to NY and my union hospital. I tried looking for a home in the Nashville area and the properties were very overpriced. There were virtually no apartments you could rent month to month, you needed a credit check and references as well as beaucoup dollars for deposit. The only thing I could find were du and triplexes that some music people rent weekly for artist retreats. The schools in the entire county (Davidson) sucked so bad it appears that most people either private schooled or home-schooled their kids. Right now they can't afford to transport their special needs kids to school. My brother is a "subcontractor" and has worked on all the housing projects in Nashville and Memphis and he is thus ineligible for unemployment. He calls Memphis "Dodge City." There is no income tax but there is a sales tax on food which is the most regressive taxation I have ever experienced. The people regularly protest any proposed income tax even thought the majority would not have to pay it and then they would have relief from a 10% tax on their food. The wealthy love it. They pay the big bucks for their ministers to preach against such evils as making the rich pay more by dividing the citizens and calling for protests on the capital. Meanwhile schools are underfunded, they have trouble getting and keeping quality educators and they can't afford their own healthcare program for the poor--cutting off TennCare applications in June!

God forbid any of the people lose their jobs. The churchies make a big "show" of helping people in crisis after a tornado but for the general jobless, forget about it--the unemployment rates are ridiculous. Actually they are more worried about gay people adopting foster kids than the poor living in shacks around them.

The IBEW there has no contract. Things are bad. What is crazy is that Tennessee is a state that benefited mightily from the Federal checkbook in WPA programs throughout. The TVA was born from the New Deal.

My sister worked a job for a law firm there, they being a right to work state regularly harassed her, refused to pay overtime, called her at home during vacations, even at my father's deathbed they still called her. The female attorneys made rude comments to her --just nasty bitches. She had no recourse, it being "right to work." She finally got another job. The law firm she works for now specializes in labor. I told her she should have still sued the prior firm but she was afraid if she related anything to her new employer they would hold it against her and consider her a troublemaker. There is no fairness. If she was in a union, she could have filed a grievance and been represented at a meeting with the managing partners and HR. There is no advocacy for the worker in Tennessee.

I worked at a for-profit hospital and it was eye opening. It was very big on the bling for the casual visitor but actual equipment for nurses to do their work was difficult to find. The IV pumps were so old, I don't think they make them anymore and you can't safely administer any blood products with them. They had a much publicized computerized inventory machine that doled out the drugs to carts for each patient but no experienced knowledgeable pharmicists that know what they were doing and thus sent up the wrong chemotherapy drugs for patients and could not answer questions regarding compatibility. The nurses were not allowed to access the internet to look up drug information and reference books were out of date. They were so short handed they started requiring all their nurses to pull two extra shifts per pay period. Mandatory overtime. If you refused, they fostered an environment that bred hositlity. People were pulled off orientation too soon (esp. new nurses). Doctors had their clinic nurses take night call for them so if a patient had a problem, I was calling a nurse and she was giving medical orders and that was OK there, it was policy. It was fucking scary. It gave these nurses ideas that they knew the doctors they worked with enough that they could act as doctors. In my state that is called "practicing medicine without a license." I complained but my manager was new and it was corporate policy. But the rooms were pretty.

When they had to call an ethics hearing to save a woman's life who was going into an acute leukemic crisis because the head of urology refused to let her on an apheresis machine d/t no medical insurance (their dept. was in charge of dialysis and apheresis machines although their uses are for entirely different things). I quit.

Believe me, it is no Shangri-La in Tennessee unless you are wealthy or high income and reap big benefits from the way they tax. The worker (people who actually produce something) is low-balled on wages.

[YvonneCa]

78. Just a thought...

...many union pensions come from deductions to the worker's paycheck for 30 years or more. That is EARNED...not a freebie.

[eilen]

84. Pensions are funded

in part by a portion of the wages that are negotiated and in part by union dues. My husband pays union dues quarterly, plus there are dues that are taken out of his check. Every raise he gets, half of it goes to the pension fund.

[YvonneCa]

87. Pensions are not all funded the same way. My point is...

...that many pensions are funded by workers themselves...by deduction, by dues they pay to a union, through methods negotiated as part of their contract with their employer (whether it be a private company or a government employer). Terms may vary...what does NOT vary, IMHO, is that promises are included as to what will be done regarding how this pension will be dispensed to the employee. To renege on those promises...for a 30+ year employee in their 60's and 70's (or older) is stealing. It's unconscionable.

[eilen]

88. I agree. nt

[mykpart]

7. Thank you for posting this.

The existence of unions benefits everyone who works. I don't think we would even have Federal Wage and Hour laws if there were no unions. Take a look at the sweatshops of the 19th century - employers will do whatever workers allow them to get away with. We would not have the Occupational Safety and Health Act had we not had unions who insisted on safe working conditions. Nor would we have Workers Compensation. We should have bumper stickers that say: If you make more than 2.00 an hour, thank a Union worker.

[unapatriciated]

12. or child labor laws,40 hour work week....

I remember when GM said they needed to outsource and build plants in Mexico to stay competitive.
I have only one question for those that believed that bull....did the price of their cars go down? Hell no but the CEO's got a lot richer while exploiting and polluting another country.

[defendandprotect]

8. Right ...unions and minimum wage laws are the underflooring for all other wages ...

And the've been destroying both for 40+ years ...

Right-wing propaganda was very effective --

So were the fake negotiations --

And the Mafia-like attacks on unions --

Truman's Taft-Hartley Act should be overturned --

[SmileyRose]

10. People understand unions just fine.

A small part of the group salivating over the prospect of killing off the UAW are greedy jerks who are just looking for their chance to destroy the New Deal and move all the wealth back to where they think it belongs - the few in their inner circle.

Another small part of the group shoveling this crapola are "journalists" out to sell papers so to speak, and a looming full on depression is good for the "news" business.

But the main group, oddly enough, are other blue collar types who have hated the UAW for a very long time. Maybe they had a crappy and corrupt union that didn't do much for their members beyond a piddly $300 a month pension in today's dollars. Maybe they spent some time on unemployment, having to show up every week hat in hand at the unemployment office, stand in line all day and lost all benefits after pounding the ever loving snot out of the pavement only to find a measily minimum wage part time job - yet when the UAW goes out they get unemployment AND a good $2000 a month supplemental pay, never to even see the inside of the unemployment office because the labor dept let the UAW guys "phone it in". Maybe they had hospitalization only, and only while actively working and are sick up to their eyeballs hearing about how bad it is for UAW retirees who have to now pay $14 for 3 months supply of a $1000 a month medication instead of the old $10. There is a real feeling out there amongst blue collars that UAW workers don't have any clue how good they have it.

I have been on both ends of the spectrum and have family in both camps. The family bitching about how good the UAW workers have it don't actually want anyone to lose a job or even lose their great benefits. The bitching is really their way of saying "what am I? chopped liver?"


Somehow we have to get the message out that fighting for the UAW is drawing a line in the sand and saying "NO MORE". No more air traffic controllers, no more steel mill closures, no more textile mill closures, no more coal mine disasters, NO MORE CONCESSIONS. Blue collars have taken it in the teeth for 28 years. Somehow, that blue collar bitching about the UAW needs to get the message that fighting for auto workers is only the beginning of fighting for better wages and benefits for the rest of America's high school graduates.

[eilen]

14. I remember hearing the same shit when the NYC transit workers

were on strike.

I still say the resentment was aimed in the wrong direction. Why don't you have the same benefits? Is it because your politicians sold you out and told you that you were undeserving? (That is the royal you, not the person I am replying to).

[readmoreoften]

54. Yes. Also check out what 58K a year in NYC translates to in national wages. Not much.

They went on strike because people died from unsafe conditions among other things. But you know "accidents happen." The media handling was disgusting. (I was on strike at the time as well in NYC.)

[Jack Sprat]

13. Would owners pay their workers a nickel an hour

if labor had not become organized in the first place?

I don't think so.

Without unions, there would never have been a middle class and this country would never have achieved a good standard of living for the people.

[Snotcicles]

17. You hit the nail on the head. Scream damn UNION!

when what you really want to end is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Exactly. I'd argue that almost every profession owes its payscale to unions. n/t

[Catshrink]

22. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair should be required reading in HS

That's why we need unions.

[fascisthunter]

30. It's Not That They Don't Understand, They Just Don't Want Workers Protected

so that they are their greedy ilk can pay Americans as little as the workers get paid in all other Third World nations. Unions prevent that from happening...

Repercussions are irrelevant to them, always have been. Look at the Great Depression.... they just don't give a damn and have repeated the same steps knowing the historical ramifications.

[leftofthedial]

31. nearly everything

[el_bryanto]

45. No Unions and No Regulations

So who exactly protects the workers? Nobody!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. The Accomplishments Have Been Long Done. We Should All Be Thankful, But We Can't Keep Using That As

defense.

Yes, many beneficial things have come about because of Unions. But that was a long time ago, and many of those accomplishments are now for the most part written in stone and the norm regardless as to whether or not a place is union. I think what many debate now is the future value of Unions, not whether or not the past has shown accomplishments.

[readmoreoften]

56. The 8 hour day is written in stone? Safe conditions is written in stone? Weekends are writ in stone?

Sounds like you have a good job in the east coast where unions are still the norm. My girlfriend is lucky if she gets "a 10 hour turn around" working in food services. That means she can get off work at 12am and have to return at 4:45 to open. She can be scheduled to work 7 days a week and only gets off Christmas.

Yeah, office workers have 9 to 5 jobs. Not everyone is an office worker. When unions are lost, real gains are lost. Unless you have real experience with this issue, you're just speculating from a comfortable position.

When my right to unionize was overturned, I personally went from a $20K salary to about $9K and lost health insurance. Private university college professors lost the right to unionize in 1980 and now at NYU 82% of courses are taught by contingent labor. I worked in a department where out of hundreds of instructors only 2 had tenure, no one had health insurance benefits, and earnings were about $4K per course (compared to actual professors who teach a load of 5 courses a year and make $80K with full benefits.)

Without unions, you have nothing but the kindness of your boss. Period. You know nothing of which you speak...

[gollygee]

57. They're only written into law, not into stone, and laws can be re-written. n/t

[Realityhack]

50. The WORD "Union"

That is what they don't get. They equate it with corruption etc. The word is a PR nightmare. Ask people if they want collective bargaining the are very positive. Ask if they want a union and they are almost entirely negative.

It's all about the negative connotation that has been attached to the word.

[Two Americas]

62. brand names

People have been trained to think in terms of brand names, and the feelings those brand names invoke, and can't see how marketers - such as the American Enterprise Institute - manipulate their emotions. It makes it very difficult to have intelligent conversations, because words are no longer words when they have been turned into brand names, and the mention of one brand name has a more powerful effect on people than logic does.

[erinlough]

58. Thoughts on what a union actually gives the worker.

I’ve been reading this thread all-day and contemplating why some of you are questioning the existence of unions. I will speak to you from my perspective as a second-generation union member and a union local President. The union gives workers one thing……due process. It does not protect a bad or dangerous worker from being fired; it does not automatically guarantee that wages will remain high or that retirement packages will not be cut. It simply guarantees that before any salary or benefits are changed or a worker is dismissed the employee will have a say, through their union contract, that is equal to the management.

Lazy managers in companies often complain that their hands are tied when hiring or firing, that is not true. If due process is followed and they can prove their complaint firing is the result. As far as ruining their profitability, remember there are two sides bargaining, they agreed to the contract, they must have thought they could fund it.

My husband was a business owner when I met him and he was anti-union. Over the years his business was sold and he entered the workforce as a non-union worker. Many times we have had to endure capricious and arbitrary decisions effecting his workday and pay, which would never have been done in a union atmosphere. Seeing work from both sides of the issue he would give anything to be in a union workplace.

[Festivito]

61. Their own brainwashing. /nt

[bobbolink]

64. K&R for important info!

:kick:

[yurbud]

67. cheap labor, cheap raw materials, keep profits at the top: that's GOP agenda stripped

of guns, god, and gays window dressing to suck in the rubes.

[B Calm]

72. When labor sticks together, wages and benefits go up! and

that goes against the CHEAP LABOR CONSverative movement.

[amborin]

74. Unions are the only way for workers to have voice & power

[Lifetimedem]

81. You are so right !

Non union shops have to be competitive with unions in wages and benefits . Today most non union workers would not have holiday pay, overtime, an 8 hour work day or health insurance.

Once the unions fought for it and won it , those benefits became the standard.

What the union busting Republicans know is if they kill the unions their non union shops will have an ability to cut back benefits and offer less union type incentives.

I am an RN, in the 80's in my area nurses were making $6.00 an hour. Other areas of the country were offering 10-12 dollars an hour.

Once one hospital in our area unionized nursing pay went up to the standard of other cities, unionized or not.

All America benefits from unions !

[mgc1961]

85. Many people...

resent union member's pay and see the price for what they desire as primarily the result of those wages. Republicans exploit this intra-class warfare as the means to not only win elections but to advance their captital interests too.

[guitar man]

93. contracts

I believe what most people, especially those that have never worked in a union shop, don't understand is the most basic thing that unions afford workers that they would not have otherwise. A contract. Do CEOs. CFOs, COOs and senior VPs have contracts? You bet your ass they do, and every time any complaints start about non-performing execs bailing out with a "golden parachute", the execs and their sycophant apologists will start up with the "well, he had a contract that stated he was entitled to blah blah blah regardless of performance" and so on.

The main difference between a union contract and an upper execs' contract is that the union contract actually requires the workers to accomplish a specific task. At least that's how it was at every union shop I ever worked at. Apparently, a shitload of CEOs don't have to accomplish anything to get showered with wealth under their contracts.


So, it's "the unions are breaking the company's back" ? Yeah, right. :eyes:

[Atman]

96. I worked in a non-union Polaroid factory years ago -- it was exactly as you say

I got paid a good wage ferrying parts out the assembly lines some days, working in a darkroom assembling film cartridges the next -- whatever they needed me for. They didn't want to unionize (they probably wouldn't be able to have guys like me float to different jobs as needed), so they paid well, and took care of their employees. Twice a year the Knapp Shoemobile came to the plant; a tractor-trailor made up to be a rolling shoe store. Each employee got to pick out two pairs of shoes (American made, I might add!) I tore my jeans on a shelf one day and my supervisor told me not to worry about it...and gave me a voucher to cover the cost of a new pair. I strongly support unions, not just for what the do to for their members, but for the exact reaasons you mention -- the help bring up wages and rights for every working person.