What's wrong with labor unions?

TigerMandingo

 
Banned
I just wanted to hear members' thoughts on this topic. Seems like most on this board would probably be against the idea of unions due to them being associated with communism or socialism.

Personally, I like unions as I feel they provide a buffer between worker and his employer and are sort of a check on corporate power. America used to have really strong unions until they were totally demolished (by Teddy Roosevelt? could be wrong on that), and now they are a shadow of what they once were.

Has there been a propaganda campaign to demonize unions?
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Labor Unions are a mixed bag.

Many of my friends and family members have been required to be in one. One friend was taken care of when he developed a disability and couldn't work any longer. A few family members were screwed when their retirements was changed after the recession because of bankruptcy threats. One member lost most of his health care in that change.

When any organization gets big, they tends to become less about the members and more about power.
 

Richard Turpin

Kingfisher
That's a damn good question. My workplace still has a very strong union presence, yet is a shadow of its former self back when I started work. In fact, when I started, it was looked down upon not to join and most of us joined because we felt obliged to. Times have changed and nowadays very few people (including myself) are members. We all feel that we get very little back for the money we paid into them each month.

On the face of things, unions seem like a great idea and union reps rightly point to all the good things they've done for the workforce. The trouble is, they (at least in my experience) are undoubtedly allied, or infiltrated with socialism/communism.

There's no starker reminder of this than a previous good friend of mine who decided to become a union rep one day purely to be able to fight against his then manager. A decade later, my friend has gone from a Daily Express reading, fairly red-pilled 'one of the lads' to a fully fledged SJW Corbyn supporter complete with propaganda spreading facebook posts every couple of days. I can only put this down to the powerful influence of this new union 'gang'.
 

Thomas More

Crow
Protestant
Labor unions tend to stifle productivity. They always push for restrictive work rules, like saying that you can't pick up a wrench and turn a loose bolt. Only members of the mechanic's union can do that. You think, "but they'll take hours to get here, and make a big stink about how they're too busy sitting on their asses to actually do anything, and anyway, it will only take me 30 seconds". So, you go ahead and adjust the bolt yourself.

Well now you've got a big grievance filed against you, mister! Expect to spend 80 hours doing paperwork and grievance meetings because you thought you'd save 30 seconds.

Companies with these kinds of strait jackets around them are not nimble in the market place, and tend to lose market share over time, until they go bankrupt. The reason why there aren't that many unions anymore is either the previous union factories became unprofitable and were closed, or the employees actually voted out the union.
 

TigerMandingo

 
Banned
RoastBeefCurtains4Me said:
Labor unions tend to stifle productivity.

Allow me to play devil's advocate.

There is a common myth that unions hurt productivity, supposedly because they impose work rules that make their employers less efficient. The evidence from industrial relations studies does not support this myth. A broad study of the economics literature found “a positive association [of unions on productivity] is established for the United States in general and for U.S. manufacturing” in particular (Doucouliagos and Laroche 2003, 1).1 And as the second chart below reveals, international comparisons suggest that high productivity and very high union density are entirely compatible.

[IMG=400x400]http://i67.tinypic.com/vungg.png[/IMG]
 

kaotic

Owl
Gold Member
I have to cosign here with WWT, I've seen Labor Unions treat my friends great and always get them work, or help with disability.

A few that come to mind are sparkies (electricians) IBEW, and also Linemen.

However, as a double edged sword they definitely can hinder work (roast alluded to), deadlines, and self sabotage (unintentionally).

There are still some great unions out there, especially for the blue collar workers, but then you have union organizers with the FightFor15 movement which are hilariously misinformed.
 

Rotten

Robin
I think you have to make two important caveats before you can say anything nice about labor unions.

First, public sector labor unions shouldn't exist. Employees shouldn't be permitted to organize against the people. There's no exploitation or profit motive to organize against. In practice, Public sector unions are only a conduit for politicians to fund their campaigns with money that belongs to the Treasury.

Second, despite all of the Rhetoric, (((Marxist))) unions run by (((Marxist Union Organizers))) do not benefit either employees or businesses. Instead, these unions make it possible for a variety of third parties to strike it rich off the labor strife.

Look at any private sector Marxist run Union, who gets rich? A: the organizers who control the strike fund and the pensions, the bankers who fun both sides, the business competitors, the various SJW universities that train the organizers, the lawyers (on both sides) that drag out the proceedings, the minor government officials that ultimately get involved and take power away from both sides. All of these beneficiaries of the Marxist struggle send their kids to the same private religious schools and in many cases personally know each other.

Who loses: the ownership, who usually has to incur extra borrowing and usually gets forced into adopting various rules that make it hard to adopt to changing market conditions, and the employees also lose, being forced to send part of their paycheck to a second boss.

Nearly all unions in the USA are Marxist run unions. (This was not always true). Most USA private sector unions forced their business into expensive but strict contracts that made the businesses fail when market conditions changed.

I concede that labor unions apparently work well in Germany due to culture, and that unions (non Marxist) played an important historical role in the United States winning the workplace safety rights that everybody now enjoys (and make union membership redundant in 2018). I also understand that skilled employees with leverage (like the sports player unions) enjoy union benefits equivalent to what they would enjoy under the pre-union guild structures.
 

Dodgy

Robin
TigerMandingo said:
Has there been a propaganda campaign to demonize unions?

No, Unions have had this coming for a long time, specifically in America. In California, unions have turned into big time lobbyist groups who use the contributions of their members to fund political candidates and causes that serve the interests on the Union (or the Union's top brass) as opposed to the interests of their worker members.

Also, as one member pointed out they stifle productivity from an efficiency standpoint, which not only results in delays but in higher costs that ultimately get passed to the consumer. But they not only stifle work productivity, they also stifle hiring qualified people. Union hiring processes are ridiculous especially in public sector unions, like state and city unions who have created stupid rules for new employee hires. And of course they also have an uncanny ability to always hire the most incompetent, dumbest people to these positions. And when you try to fire these hacks, union rules mandate a long, drawn out process for termination; to the point where employers will literally offer some union idiot a $75k buyout to leave instead of going through the termination process. It's almost like extortion.

And in regards to extortion, another reason unions in America have declined is due to mob infiltration. Guys don't understand just how prevalent mob control of labor unions was in the 20th century. The Midwest mobs used the Teamsters Union Pension Fund (Jimmy Hoffa's union) as their personal bank to fund the building of Las Vegas casinos including the Stardust. For those familiar with Martin Scorsese's Casino, that's based on real life events. Kevin Pollack's character was based on a former Union lawyer turned mob controlled strawman owner of the Stardust, which was managed by the mob who skimmed from the earnings of the casino.

Also, in NYC the five families basically controlled all the unions in the City. You can google the "NYC concrete cartel case," or the "windows case" to see how the mob manipulated the unions to get construction contacts and then charged exorbitant amounts to contractors to get these projects done. It's a fact that mob controlled unions built and managed the Javits convention center and even poured the concrete for Trump Tower. And all the high prices the mob charged was passed onto residents, making some writers speculate that the high cost of living in NYC is directly related to the high construction costs imposed by mob controlled construction unions. And when the mob was taken down in the 80s and 90s, it was embarrassing to organized labor just how extensive mob control was. In fact, the Federal government had to literally take control of the Teamster's Union because it couldn't stop mob corruption.

So no, there's no propaganda campaign. Organized labor has needed to be deconstructed and reconfigured for a long time now.
 

Disco_Volante

 
Banned
Public unions are why 92% of government employees vote democrat. They're always going to favor big government to keep the benefits and money going. In most school districts something like 70% of the 'education spending' actually goes to the teachers' pension funds. They're collectively bargaining to stick it to the taxpayer and they don't give a shit what the consequences are. Illinois and California owe hundreds of billions they don't have in payments to all the public 'servants' who retired at 52 and now get pension payments every month for life. This will obviously go bankrupt but they're too arrogant to care.

They're all self-righteous that their 'union brothers' are in some sort of struggle to protect their families from the evils of business or whatever. Its a big cult basically that justifies automatic dues deducted from their paychecks. Unions are also why, in all those police shootings its virtually impossible to fire the cop. Paid vacation every time.

Private sector unions aren't relevant anymore since globalism came along, a business can easily move to another country and their pwecious wittle 'collective bargaining' doesn't mean shit.
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
Dodgy said:
TigerMandingo said:
Has there been a propaganda campaign to demonize unions?

No, Unions have had this coming for a long time, specifically in America.

Yes.

Around about 1993 I had similar questions to TigerMandingo's and set out to learn about the history of labor and unions.

I almost literally couldn't find anything, except for folk songs and one history of the labor movement in the US that was published by a labor organization in Australia.

Granted, this was before the internet, though you'd think that, having access to a university library, I would have found something.

And I know for sure that we were never taught as school children about how the labor unions formed or the reasons why.

Kind of interesting considering most people are much more likely to be laborers than owners of corporations.

As has been asked many times in the past, why do newspapers have a business section but not a labor section?

I don't think it is anti-free enterprise to say that a very small, and getting smaller, percentage of the population owns most of the wealth, and exerts a huge influence on the media in any country.

It is in their best interests to get the public to see things from their point of view.

And the last thing they want are any barriers to doing whatever they want to make money.

Before labor unions, the U.S. had the slave concept of the company town, where you not only worked for a company, but it owned every store in the town too.

I haven't researched this in a while, so this is cursory, but if you ever want to check it out, search for 'labor' 'union' and 'massacres.'

One example of the working conditions that led to organizing workers, and the response from the company is the Ludlow Massacre.

Here is a bit of background:


Wikipedia Ludlow Massacre

Miners were generally paid according to tonnage of coal produced, while so-called "dead work", such as shoring up unstable roofs, was often unpaid.[13] According to historian Thomas G. Andrews, the tonnage system drove many poor and ambitious colliers to gamble with their lives by neglecting precautions and taking on risk, with consequences that were often fatal.[14] Between 1884 and 1912, mining accidents claimed the lives of more than 1,700 in Colorado.[15] In 1913 alone, "104 men would die in Colorado's mines, and 6 in the mine workings on the surface, in accidents that widowed 51 and left 108 children fatherless."[16]

Colliers had little opportunity to air their grievances. Many colliers resided in company towns, in which all land, real estate, and amenities were owned by the mine operator, and which were expressly designed to inculcate loyalty and squelch dissent.[17] Welfare capitalists believed that anger and unrest among the workers could be placated by raising colliers' standard of living, while subsuming it under company management. Company towns indeed brought tangible improvements to the lives of many colliers and their families, including larger houses, better medical care, and broader access to education.[18] But, ownership of the towns provided companies considerable control over all aspects of workers' lives, and they did not always use this power to augment public welfare. Historian Philip S. Foner has described company towns as "feudal domain, with the company acting as lord and master. ... The 'law' consisted of the company rules. Curfews were imposed. Company guards - brutal thugs armed with machine guns and rifles loaded with soft-point bullets - would not admit any 'suspicious' stranger into the camp and would not permit any miner to leave." Miners who came into conflict with the company were liable to find themselves and their families summarily evicted from their homes.[19]

Frustrated by working conditions which they believed were unsafe and unjust, colliers increasingly turned to unionism. Nationwide, organized mines boasted 40 percent fewer fatalities than nonunion mines.[20] Colorado miners had repeatedly attempted to unionize since the state's first strike in 1883. The Western Federation of Miners organized primarily hard rock miners in the gold and silver camps during the 1890s.

Beginning in 1900, the United Mine Workers of America began organizing coal miners in the western states, including southern Colorado. The union decided to focus on the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company because of its harsh management tactics under the conservative and distant Rockefellers and other investors. To break or prevent strikes, the coal companies hired strike breakers, mainly from Mexico and southern and eastern Europe. The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company's management mixed immigrants of different nationalities in the mines, a practice which discouraged communication that might lead to organization.


That's how it started, not with fat cat union reps and communists lining their own pockets.

The company brutally put down any organizers even going so far as to call in the national guard.

350px-Colorado_nat_guard_arrive_ludlow_strike.jpg


Someone who was there describes the militia as:
 

Mekorig

Pelican
Gold Member
Never saw a union really defending a worker´s right on my life. It always that discourse, but really they dont fucking care about you, they want more power. Also, infested with commies.
 

Gradient

Kingfisher
Rotten said:
I think you have to make two important caveats before you can say anything nice about labor unions.

First, public sector labor unions shouldn't exist. Employees shouldn't be permitted to organize against the people. There's no exploitation or profit motive to organize against. In practice, Public sector unions are only a conduit for politicians to fund their campaigns with money that belongs to the Treasury.

100% Correct. I'm pretty sure that FDR himself was against public sector unions.
 

Hypno

Crow
It’s really been a long time since unions served much of a valid purpose. Most governments passes wage and hour and discrimination laws 50+ years ago. Since then they have been more parasite than a force to accomplish something
 

LeBeau

Ostrich
Gold Member
One of the biggest issues with unions that few people talk about is accountability.

I can understand the debates around collective bargaining, safety, pensions, etc. but many unions use their power to make it extremely difficult to fire someone. We see this especially with public sector unions.

I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't have an issue with higher wages for union members if they knew they were getting more value. This is in stark contrast to the example set by teachers' unions, where virtually no one loses their job for poor performance. Even inappropriate behavior is more likely to result in a teacher being quietly shuffled to a different school or assigned area of the school district, rather than dismissal.

There also has to be a way for union and public sector employees to be held accountable for customer service in a similar manner to how private sector employees can be punished for complaints, or poor reviews and survey responses.
 

AneroidOcean

Hummingbird
Gold Member
TigerMandingo said:
I just wanted to hear members' thoughts on this topic. Seems like most on this board would probably be against the idea of unions due to them being associated with communism or socialism.

Personally, I like unions as I feel they provide a buffer between worker and his employer and are sort of a check on corporate power. America used to have really strong unions until they were totally demolished (by Teddy Roosevelt? could be wrong on that), and now they are a shadow of what they once were.

Has there been a propaganda campaign to demonize unions?

Why does an employee need a buffer between them and their employer?

What purpose does a Union serve that isn't served by the myriad number of laws in the US that protects worker's rights?

What exactly is corporate power that should be checked that is not already checked with existing laws?
 

TigerMandingo

 
Banned
AneroidOcean said:
Why does an employee need a buffer between them and their employer?

What purpose does a Union serve that isn't served by the myriad number of laws in the US that protects worker's rights?

What exactly is corporate power that should be checked that is not already checked with existing laws?

On paper, I agree. The laws do provide some sort of protection to the average employee. But realistically, corporations by their very nature are predatory and authoritarian. Their powers have gone unchecked in the last hundred years, if anything they have been granted unlimited authority.

Real wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, meanwhile the ruling class has consolidated its wealth. Perhaps unions aren't the answer, but there should be some sort of "buffer" (for lack of a better term).
 

N°6

Hummingbird
For context:

Ancient world - artificers
Medieval world - guilds and freemasons
Enlightenment - speculative freemasonic infiltration of operative freemasonry, end of guild system

Industrial Revolution (i) - non-Conformist Christian unions

Industrial Revolution (ii) - Marxist

Crisis of Marxism - Pope XIII devises the corporate state - guilds for industrial era, adopted by Italian and British Fascists


Post WW2 - Swedish corporate state, statist unions in the West, resisted women and immigrants in the labour force - undermines wages (Marx Engels reserve labour pool theory). CEOs and banks push for women and immigrants, states in debt push for more tax payers. Married man's premium on salary abolished.


1980s+ triumph of liberal economics and social mores, unions emasculated, revived as defenders of victim groups. Union parades now like mardi gras and gay pride. Muscular socialism destroyed.
 

Wreckingball

Pelican
Catholic
Unions are like communism.

In theory they are great, but in reality they suck.

Productivity: As mentioned before, Unions stifle productivity. They enforce rules that make honest workers go trough troubles to fix easy problems. Do we have a graphic of productivity of countries where there are no(t many) unions?
Accountability: Goes hand in hand with productivity. Bad and toxic workers become unfireable, thus making recruiting more difficult, lenghty, complex and costly.
They are not apolitical and don't care about workers: 95% of the unions I know, are all leftist puppets(and in Portugal by leftist i mean actual Communist Party) and they care only for granted rights but not extra duties.
Useless: They serve no other purposes than to strike whenever the Communist party wishes to do so.

They are partially to blame for lower wages and for work precariousness.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I can see it from both sides when it comes to unions.

Corporations will screw you in a heart beat. I learned that right out of college. They can't be counted on to do what is right. This is why I feel Republicans fall short when it comes to relying overly heavy on the free market mantra. There is a fine line when it comes to regulations and not making it overly difficult for companies to do business.

Unions will needlessly impose restrictions just so they can say they did something for those dues. They have been great in raising work conditions and pay. They still have to produce because people have a short memory and will want to stop paying dues if they don't feel like they are getting more and more and more.

I keep reading more and more about how people are not saving for retirement. I actually think this will be a epidemic in the next 10 or so years. My dad has a sweet ass retirement package that would cost me roughly 2 million to reproduce. He wouldn't have gotten anything close to that without the union.

Then we look at a lot of public pensions that are bankrupting states. I don't doubt unions are playing a role in that as well.
 
Top