Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
I've worked in two different factories these past few weeks, one was heavily unionized, the other is not. In the unionized plant not only were most people compensated well, but they also went to great lengths to prevent hazards and injuries, sometimes it was overzealous, but for the most part I appreciated how seriously they took working safely. It was clean, well lit, well ventilated and almost everybody seemed to enjoy their jobs.
The 2 days I've worked in a very anti-union factory (we are union contractor but barred from displaying any union symbols), I've almost been ran over twice and I'm not exaggerating. It's not for lack of trying to avoid being hit by fork lift drivers including a hi visibility t-shirts, constantly checking behind me and approaching corners carefully. It's also incredibly dirty, very loud, and there is poor ventilation. Remember when we talking about "dirty" we're talking various kinds of metallic and chemical dust, and fumes from melting plastic, not mud.
Just glancing on glassdoor.com I can see that many factory employees had legitimate complaints about how they were treated and the working conditions.
I think it's poor form for people like software engineers be so quick to support the banning or gutting of labor protections simply because they don't have an interest or need for them at their jobs. Unions are generally more efficient at improving working conditions than OSHA, and provide job protection to those that bring up legitimate concerns to management.
Sanders is sincere in his support of labor unions. I see Clinton as a panderer, which makes sense when it seems only union leadership wanted to endorse her, any labor union that polled their members ended up supporting Sanders. I didn't vote for Obama either time, but I can say he hasn't done a whole lot for labor. Increasing the cap for OT for salaried employees might be one of the most significant changes under his administration.
|
What I meant with the software engineer was it is possible for someone who is non-unionized to have leverage with respect to negotiating with employers. It was a counter example to the previous claim that non-unionized workers have no leverage.
I said that I support banning public sector unions b/c of conflict of interest. The reason is that our representatives are supposed to represent us, the taxpayer. To that end, they should try to get us (the tax payer) the highest quality government services at the lowest price (tax burden). The public sector union model turns this approach on its head to the point where representatives' emphasis is generating the highest possible dollar amount in mandated union dues, which are then used to re-elect Democrats who are puppets of the public sector unions (just look at what is happening now with the budget in Illinois).
With unionized public sector workers, the representatives (when they are Democrats) end up doing what is best for the public sector unions at the expense of the taxpayer. The reason is that union dues are mandated and end up going back to the Democrats' campaign coffers. The union members also provide a lot of in-kind contributions to Democrats: canvassing, registering people to vote, getting them to the polls, etc.
I do not support banning private sector unions, even though I may have some misgivings about whether or not they are the best way to go. With private sector unions, we are not forced to patronize the companies that use them the way we are forced to pay taxes to support the public sector unions.
This is a HUGE difference, please do not misunderstand my position.
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.
