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.
Unions are notorious for putting people and/or businesses out of work, or making them so noncompetitive that they become irrelevant or also-rans in their respective industries.
The Japanese have been demolishing the Detroit Three in the marketplace for at least three decades with no unions in sight.
When an employee who spends ten minutes walking from his car to his job site gets paid for it (as prison guards in California do), then you know why unions are not beneficial to most of us.
You mean it's excellent propaganda. I re-wrote it to be more truthful and accurate.
And the benefits are disputable. Depending on the occupation, unionized workers earn wages that are ten to forty percent higher than Market rate wages, which violates the Laws of Economics, causing undo hardship for workers and their families in the future, since the workers are being paid unrealistic wages in the here-and-now which will ultimately result in closure of the work-place and loss of jobs. The negative differential for other forms of compensation, such as a glorified pre-paid medical-services cost-sharing plan that Liberals fraudulently misrepresent as "health care insurance" and pensions based on Ponzi-Schemes, is even greater.
Perhaps more importantly unions attempt to defy reality and the Laws of Economics under the false guise of justice. Nearly all union contracts feature an informal form of bullying: a grievance procedure that ends in final and binding arbitration making it impossible to terminate employees who are incompetent, who fail to perform; or who pose threats to customers and employees. As such, in most union settings an employer must have permission of the Pope in Rome, the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, the Warsaw Pact and 74 truck-loads of documents to show proof that a union teacher having sex with a 9 year old in the class room committed a wrongdoing in order to discharge them.
Union-busting...
Mircea
Uh, Mr. Magoo, it is a reality that in order for any country on Earth to move into the realm of electromechanical industrialization, children must be employed.
The process of electromechanical industrialization is very labor intensive, and requires an extraordinary amount of labor, which necessitates the need for children to be employed. No country in the history of Earth has ever gone through the process of electromechanical industrialization without using children, and apparently no country on Earth ever will.
Perhaps several centuries in the future, whatever countries left on Earth that have not entered the electromechanical industrialization phase may be able to do that without using children.
If you were expecting to get a knee-jerk reaction by screaming "10 year olds in coal mines" it didn't work.
Since you hold yourself out to be some sort of expert in Economics, why don't you take the time to explain why children were working in the coal-mines in the first place?
Can you do that?
Not knee-jerking...
Mircea
Are you okay with foreign competitors buying US companies and taking ownership of them?
Next time you're at Wal-Mart or McDonalds or Starsucks, why don't you ask the former Zenith Corporation employees how much they miss their old jobs....
....if Zenith had been able to make a profit, then Korean corporation LG (Life's Good) would not have been able to buy Zenith...and shut down the facilities....and fire the workers.
Ah, yes, union member Pete Rose of the Cincinnati Reds got a contract for $600,000 year.
Upper income wages....no union members there? Are you sure? You might want to look at some of the wealthiest people in the United States....because they're all union members....and they're all in the sports/entertainment/music/celebrity industry.
What is "anti-worker" about legislation that gives an employee a right to choose whether or not to join a Union? No one should be forced to join a labor union and have money extracted from their pay to support these thugs!
Unions behave like thugs, and extract money through coercion. Nix them! I'm all for these "right to work" laws!
So, obviously, you would far, far, rather work in a non-unionized workplace where the pay and benefits aren't as good.
Should the non dues paying worker receive the same compensation as the union worker for doing the same job? Keep in mind that the union members negotiated those wages and benefits that made the job attractive in the first place.
You Libs are hilarious. Now you're worried about "fairness" in the other direction? It's OK for non-taxpayers to receive the same benefits/entitlements as the taxpayer, but not union workers?
NONE of you Libs are answering the question that keeps getting asked: if the union is so great, this vote is a non-issue. Won't EVERYONE want to pay their dues/join the union? And if not, why not?
If unions add true value to a worker then they don't need laws to protect them. Workers will want to voluntarily join such a fine organization.
The real problem, which you are deliberately ignoring, is that without the agency fee workers can get all the benefits of the unions without paying any of the costs associated with negotiating the labor contract. You and I both know the freeloaders will ALWAYS try to get something for nothing so you're obviously being dishonest here. BTW the agency fee only is about $25 per month to just cover negotiation expenses so it's not like it is a big cost and there is a good reason for it since those nonmembers do benefit from high wages, more benefits, and more time off.
It's obvious that Republicans don't really give a rat's behind about the workers and instead this is just a politically motivated attack to try to damage unions. The problem is you're so dishonest you won't even admit the obvious.
Tell that to the families of the 29 miners killed at the Massey Energy mine in West Virginia. The miners had no way to address their safety concerns. Anyone who complained was fired.
So, obviously, you would far, far, rather work in a non-unionized workplace where the pay and benefits aren't as good.
Such simple minded Libs.
I'd rather work in a workplace where I am judged on my job performance, not on my seniority alone. Where my coworkers that suck at their job get let go, thereby allowing more qualified workers to do those jobs. Where someone that shows up drunk or high gets fired, as they should.
Where teachers, with dismal job performance, actually stay in the classrooms and teach, instead of violently protesting to protect their own self-interest.
Why do we need unions in the government ? What is so bad about working for the government that unions are needed to protect government workers ?
Let's see if I got this straight. Republican gun rights folks think they need guns to protect themselves against criminals and big government.
But government employees don't deserve protection from these same people with a labor union?
So on one hand you expect the Gov's employees to trust them with their careers but on the other hand you don't trust the Gov AT ALL. Kind of a double standard IMO.
An argument could be made that government employees could possibly be the most in need of a union group there is!
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.
