Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WW 2 was so incredibly destructive that the only significant industrial power that was untouched was the USA. The local grocery store department manager was able to feed a family of six. Things were simpler then too. People had a phone, analogue TV, electric bills, grocery bills and a mortgage.
The good thing about 2019 is you can live your life like its 1955 no one is stopping you. The reason life is more complicated today with people having vastly more things has nothing to do with unions.
I suspect that we are in agreement on many subjects and I respect your opinion. So let me ask you this; if American corporations let the American standard of living fall through the floor, is it perhaps because they are more interested in focusing on the growing Asian markets?
Not necessarily, we are a global economy but the US market is still the biggest consumer market. That's because Asian markets are typically protectionism. There are numerous tariffs and regulations that prevent American goods and services from expanding. This is why Trump wanted to slap tariffs on China. It's unfair that China and even Japan have tariffs against US rice, corn, and, beef. While we don't have any tariffs because American corporations want to keep Asian goods as cheap as possible so they can make a profit here.
We keep being told that tariffs against China would hurt American economy but doing nothing against China has already damaged our economy especially technology and manufacturing which now depend on China than being self sufficient decades ago.
If we slap tariffs on China, stuff like iPhones and PCs would go up in price. It's not a simple problem, tariffs alone is not an easy fix to our trade imbalance with China.
Now, China is actually more worried about US consumers than our own government. Because they believe without a thriving US middle class. It would lead to decline in consumption and their business would be affected.
The last 2 decades the US government has done nothing to help the middle class, because corporation have lobbied hard to get the government to work for them and our 2 party system has engaged in partisan politics for much of the time without getting anything done for the tax payers.
I think unions need to create a new narrative not rooted in long ago, nostalgia based labor tales. Most of the stuff you mentioned in the OP are readily available.
Unions also need to address their dynamic of protecting bad employees. Employees shouldn't think they can do whatever they want just because they're in the union and they can't get fired.
Truth be told, a lot of bad employees seek unions for that very reason. Human nature.
I've been in a labor union for 25 years, and I completely agree with you.
The key word is “group”. If you have a job that translates well into being part of a larger group, sure. But it also then means that everyone benefits (or doesn’t benefit) together.
I’d also be curious if there are ever contracts that reward member productivity or performance over tenure. I’ve never heard of one but they must exist, right?
I’ve never had a job in my career after the age of 23 that would have made me part of a “group” suitable for collective bargaining. I do realize that I’m probably an outlier in that regard.
Are you stating certain industries can never unionize? I have a hard time believing that. What do you do?
If you’re in IT, then yes you’re in a group. Chances are what you do can be classified , just in a broader way.
Increased education is the reason. We have moved far up the economic food chain the last few decades.
I agree. This notion that the middle class is doing worse than it was in 1955 is ridiculous. Perhaps someone today working a minimum wage job might not be doing better than someone at a minimum wage job in 1955 might be correct, depending where you live but whose fault is it if one drops out of school?
Are you stating certain industries can never unionize? I have a hard time believing that. What do you do?
If you’re in IT, then yes you’re in a group. Chances are what you do can be classified , just in a broader way.
I’ve never been in a cookie cutter IT role though, and have been in management since I was 25, and senior management starting around age 35. I’ve since moved into tech consulting.
If you are a programmer, network tech, helpdesk person, then yes I could see those positions unionize. I’m sure they already are in the public sector.
But again, I’ve never heard of collective bargaining agreements that reward individual performance. So unless you’re the kind of IT worker that likes to punch a clock I suspect many wouldn’t want to be part of a CBA. And if you have to broaden the definition so much to include everyone I’d be even more certain.
My father in law is IBEW so I’m not anti union per se, but I would never join one myself. My brother is a unionized public school teacher (very skilled, credentialed and rated) and I think it’s worked well for him, except that it took years before he got tenure while less effective teachers got it first due to time in.
I agree. This notion that the middle class is doing worse than it was in 1955 is ridiculous. Perhaps someone today working a minimum wage job might not be doing better than someone at a minimum wage job in 1955 might be correct, depending where you live but whose fault is it if one drops out of school?
People who believe that the 50’s were so superior should watch some of the old Twilight Zone episodes where a down and out person lives in a rented room, sweating without AC and their entertainment comes from sitting on the front stoop.
Also with respect to the expense of items, things are much cheaper today when you account for inflation. And likely still so even with tariffs applied. A Barbie doll sold for $3 in 1959, which would be $26 today. For under $20 you get a doll with various accessories.
1. If management doesn't care, it's unlikely to start...... Sure, then a strike can occur, but who really hurts?
2. Only for the group as a whole. Individuals are screwed, there's no incentive to do more, produce more, or be better educated, when you won't benefit from it.
3. first year 2 weeks instead of 1. Three years, maybe 4 weeks instead of three. Five years, four weeks.. maybe five weeks...depends on company.
4. If the company is still around 55 years later...
5. FMLA is now the law of the land. In union and non, you can sue unless for specific reasons.
6. That's why management developed "PIP" to undercut some of them.
7. But who's to say they reach it?
8. That depends on the workers. Period. If you have safety minded employees, you have a safe place. Employees who "Take a chance" usually end up being the reason others die...... Note: have one tech who is "Old School" Supervisor came on floor without safety glasses...He threw a fit and the supervisor went back for some.... Employees are the reason a place is safe, not some rules posted.
9. Kind of falls under #6
Few Americans want a job with an employer who ignores their individual efforts. Yet that's what labor unions offer employees today. Small wonder membership is steadily declining.
The premise of collective bargaining is that by representing all employees a union can negotiate a better collective contract than each worker could get through individual negotiations. But because the union negotiates collectively, the same contract covers every worker, regardless of his or her productivity or effort.
The Heritage Foundation is partly funded by the Koch Brothers who are known to be anti union. The Koch brothers are also known to have funded Janus in Janus v. AFSCME. A conservative Supreme Court deprived enabled free riders. Free riders in this sense mean people who don't pay public sector union dues while benefiting from collective bargaining efforts. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-report-099791
Forming your opinions using biased sources will not yield objective conclusions.
I agree. This notion that the middle class is doing worse than it was in 1955 is ridiculous. Perhaps someone today working a minimum wage job might not be doing better than someone at a minimum wage job in 1955 might be correct, depending where you live but whose fault is it if one drops out of school?
Two dollars an hor went much further in 1975 than eight dollars an hour does now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
