What if Arizona became a Pro Union State ? (Tucson: limousine, schools)

[visitor21]

Originally Posted by magnum0417

Unions dilute the job market and the middle class.

Unions have been dying since the early 80's. Unions are pretty much dead in AZ. Then why is the middle class and job market getting more diluted in the US since the early 80's? Does AZ even have a middle class?

[visitor21]

Originally Posted by Burning Madolf

Hahaha, yeah, THAT'S why AZ isn't as "successful" as Germany.

Yep, AZ isn't as "highly educated" as Germany , too.

[Zathras]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

I think this is the fundamental point that you're missing. In Arizona, "fair treatment" of workers isn't the law. Businesses in Arizona are free to fire people for no reason, or unfair reasons with impunity. I've personally been a victim of an employer who tried to skirt overtime laws and settling that issue took several years, as the government does not enforce those basic laws. Unions are completely worthless until you or a family member is the one getting hosed. The emperor has no clothes - the agencies that are charged with enforcing the most basic worker protections are woefully understaffed and underfunded, and intentionally so in Arizona. You can pretend that "the days of worker abuse are long gone", but spend an hour at the EEOC office & you might have a different opinion.

"fair treatment" is a rather subjective term.. And there are PLENTY of laws on the books here in AZ and nationally, that relate to workers being treated fairly. Businesses are in business here in Arizona to make money. The government most certainly DOES enforce overtime laws. I've been personally involved in such cases. Big ones. And there were no unions involved to help or hinder (depending on your point of view). But like everything else the government and lawyers do, it can take months and years to resolve those types of cases.

And I didn't say "the days of worker abuse are long gone" (you quoted as if I said that)... I said "the days when safety and fair treatment were major problems are long gone. "
I submit that safety and fair treatment are not major problems in Arizona. I am not claiming that there is none. I just don't believe that we need unions to fight for those things any more.

[grmi66]

About the only union presence in Arizona that I see are the guys that picket non-union construction sites. But I don't even think that the union hires union guys to picket. Friend of mine had his business picketed when they were building a new facility and he took it as a badge of honor that his company was finally big enough to be on someone's radar. It was like free advertising. Took pictures of it and emailed around to all of his friends and family.

My opinion is that if you want to join a union, by all means sign up. Just don't force people to have to join a union. It should not be a job requirement.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by grmi66

About the only union presence in Arizona that I see are the guys that picket non-union construction sites. But I don't even think that the union hires union guys to picket. Friend of mine had his business picketed when they were building a new facility and he took it as a badge of honor that his company was finally big enough to be on someone's radar. It was like free advertising. Took pictures of it and emailed around to all of his friends and family.

My opinion is that if you want to join a union, by all means sign up. Just don't force people to have to join a union. It should not be a job requirement.

In order to join a union *the workers* have to vote the union in. They've already made that choice, or their predecessors have. What you're asking for is "union wages" without the union, and that isn't happening.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

In order to join a union *the workers* have to vote the union in. They've already made that choice, or their predecessors have. What you're asking for is "union wages" without the union, and that isn't happening.

I believe you're overlooking the primary issue, Zippyman.

A business in a Right To Work State, such as Arizona, is allowed to have a Union but they are NOT allowed to require all, either new hires or existing, employees to join or continue their membership.

Once again . . . any reputable business NEEDS a good, dedicated and conscientious employee every bit as much as the employee NEEDS the business / employment.

Unfortunately, protecting the lazy deadbeat employees has become a way of life for many, if not most, unions nowadays which negatively effects everyone including the other employees, the business owners as well as the consumers.

[Zathras]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

In order to join a union *the workers* have to vote the union in. They've already made that choice, or their predecessors have. What you're asking for is "union wages" without the union, and that isn't happening.

Why are you assuming the employee is going to get 'union wages' if they're not in the union? If a company hires non-union employees then they could offer whatever wage is acceptable to both the employee and the company. If the employee is deemed to be a better performer, and/or has other offers or employment options, then the company might offer a higher wage. If they are an underperformer or desperate for work, then they might settle for a lesser wage. If the employer no longer wants them to work for them, they get let go. If the employee no longer wants to work for the employer, they leave.
Free market, pay-for-performance, right-to-work...

[stephen431]

I think the first question to ask here is what kind of unions would even form in Arizona if it became "pro-union"?

I think construction unions would be tough. The kind of construction work we have doesn't seem to lend itself well to forming unions.
We don't have much in the way of skilled manufacturing out here, and what skilled manufacturing we do have seems to recruit from out of state.
Unionizing travel & tourism is pretty tough in seasonal areas like ours where you HAVE to reduce labor in the summer.

Mining might become unionized...
Farm workers maybe?
Nurses & Teachers?

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by stephen431

I think the first question to ask here is what kind of unions would even form in Arizona if it became "pro-union"?

I think construction unions would be tough. The kind of construction work we have doesn't seem to lend itself well to forming unions.
We don't have much in the way of skilled manufacturing out here, and what skilled manufacturing we do have seems to recruit from out of state.
Unionizing travel & tourism is pretty tough in seasonal areas like ours where you HAVE to reduce labor in the summer.

Mining might become unionized...
Farm workers maybe?
Nurses & Teachers?

Retail services, defense contractors (Honeywell, Boeing, Raytheon), chip makers (Intel), warehousing, transportation and distribution. With all the illegal/immigrant labor it would be hard for unions to make much of a stand in AZ. That is the main reason for allowing the illegals in as well as dumbing down the schools in AZ - uneducated, cheap labor to fuel the agriculture, construction, and retail sectors.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by Zathras

Please. I reject your theory that the difference in Arizona prosperity between your two time periods is necessarily related to union activity. I might just as easily put forth the notion that social welfare programs in Arizona were much smaller in your first time period than they were in the second, and therefore anyone who supports social welfare programs has a goal of making Arizona less prosperous.

The problem with unions in AZ (or anywhere) is that they demotivate. I'm not claiming there are no upsides to unions- there are. But the days when safety and fair treatment were major problems are long gone.

Hi - I mentioned that union strength is not the only difference in the two time periods. However, it makes much more sense for union strengths to have a direct effect of income strength and equality rather than social programs. More socials programs in the 1976-2006 period would have increased income equality, but the exact opposite happened. While union strength again is not the only difference it is still one of the best candidates to explain the opposing developments.