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.
If you look at U.S. Census data from 1860-1890 you will see manufacturing wages (adjusted for inflation) jumped 50%. They jumped another 34% from 1891-1914.
This was before minimum wage laws. Union membership was less than 3% of the labor market. And unions had no legal protections. There were hardly any workplace laws at all.
And millions of unionized workers were leaving Western Europe for the non-union United States.
How do union people deal with this reality? They ignore it.
There are many reasons European left Europe, the primary one being war not unions.
Henry Ford resisted unionization through a group of hired thugs that intimidated his employees. One infamous stand where his people beat up both men & women can be read here: Battle of the Overpass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's frustrating for me to watch people regurgitate half truths that have been bought and paid for by the wealthy of this country through their favorite media puppet. Union people, and their support have done so much to mold these peoples lives they don't even think about. In the 1880 they fought for the 12 hour day. They had been working 16, and this was eventually reduced to the 8 hr day, and 40 hour week enjoyed by all today. Almost all labor laws in place that protect workers were fought for by union members. People died in 1934 in San Francisco at the hands of the governor: 1934 West Coast waterfront strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See Bloody Thursday.
When I see regular members in my brotherhood going to council meetings to support a working cause it pains me to hear a working person make such negative claims repeated from a paid puppet. We had the 1920's Red Scare, and the American Plan campaign that brought on the roaring 20's. We all know how this ended in the crash of 29. We had another Red Scare in the 50's where people were blacklisted and lives ruined all based on claims that now have been proven to be false by recently released information.
After WWII unions were strong and we saw some of the most prosperous times ever, and the greatest middle class per capita to the population. Since 1980 we've seen a decline due to complacent workers allowing managements campaign in to their heads. Good luck, but when you stand in soup kitchen, and sequestration cuts their budget, but the blonde bimbo on the news tells you its had no effect you will know the truth!
Why do non-unionized people whine at the benefits union personnel have?
They are envious. The truth is, poor white trash want others to be poor white trash, just like they are. If they work for peanuts, they want other to as well.
It is a very effective propaganda tool of the rightwing in their demonization of unions, as well Republicans attempts to destroy unions, and the middle class, in America.
Are you that insecure about your ability that you think that without union support your labor isn't valued?
I am glad that I was instilled with the self confidence of knowing that I don't need someone to negotiate my worth for me.
Your labor is worth the same as mine. So if mine is worth $7.00 so is yours. Having a union is good. I don't have to negotiate with the bosses. That is what I pay them to do for me. And I doubt you are getting a better deal standing by your lonesome. The boss is laughing at you. He is paying me. Well the taxpayers are anyway.
They are envious. The truth is, poor white trash want others to be poor white trash, just like they are. If they work for peanuts, they want other to as well.
It is a very effective propaganda tool of the rightwing in their demonization of unions, as well Republicans attempts to destroy unions, and the middle class, in America.
Those people are happy to live in a single wide. If they have "class" a double wide. I wanted something better.
They didn't have a vote at Ford Motor. They went to Henry, he agreed to let a union in. Though he did resist at first.
All I was saying is that if a union is voted in and the employer doesn't want it then we can't call that free market. As the employer is forced by law to accept a contract he doesn't want and should be illegal as employers have rights too.
If he agrees to let a union in then the agreement is mutually agreed to and should be perfectly legal.
It wasn't a tangent at all. You are saying that if the workers organize and vote for a union that is contrary to a "free market economy".
I'm saying regardless of whether a manufacturer is 'burdened' with a "closed shop" he still has recourse to sell his goods for whatever price that makes him a profit.
You are not thinking clearly here as the world now moves to an open world free trade market. Your wages along with everyone else's will of necessity reduce down to the lowest common denominator. Your skill, your work ethic, your loyalty ALL WORTHLESS to the new age employer. He'll use the cheapest resources he can find and you my friend are merely an overpaid resource when he finds a cheaper labor pool in some chit-hole of a country just coming of age.
Pick your poison; Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, ......etc., Your one hope for the continuation of any kind of lifestyle close to what you've enjoyed for your lifetime is those other countries ALL become unionized, otherwise how would you like your day's pay? With soy sauce or without.
It wasn't a tangent at all. You are saying that if the workers organize and vote for a union that is contrary to a "free market economy".
I'm saying regardless of whether a manufacturer is 'burdened' with a "closed shop" he still has recourse to sell his goods for whatever price that makes him a profit.
You are not thinking clearly here as the world now moves to an open world free trade market. Your wages along with everyone else's will of necessity reduce down to the lowest common denominator. Your skill, your work ethic, your loyalty ALL WORTHLESS to the new age employer. He'll use the cheapest resources he can find and you my friend are merely an overpaid resource when he finds a cheaper labor pool in some chit-hole of a country just coming of age.
Pick your poison; Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, ......etc., Your one hope for the continuation of any kind of lifestyle close to what you've enjoyed for your lifetime is those other countries ALL become unionized, otherwise how would you like your day's pay? With soy sauce or without.
I used to buy into the Libertarian myth that your skill set is what makes you valuable. No, it really doesn't unless you have a master's degree, Ph.D., or another professional graduate degree. NO matter what, the goal of the company is to pay the lowest amount of money possible to their employees, it's the employees' job to negotiate the salary upwards, either by themselves (most of the time unsuccessful) or through a union. It is my belief as well that the good salaries that some white collar non union jobs provide is more to prevent unionization of the workplace (throwing a bone to the workers) than the company recognizing, geez this guy is really valuable. I want to pay him $60,000 because of his degree. The tea party thinks the world works this way. No, I'm a realist. The way the world works is this: "I'm going to pay him $60,000 instead of $30,000 so he wouldn't get uppity and want to unionize, forcing me to pay him $90,000 instead". In the end, unions and the threat of unionization are what maintains the middle class, not the goodness of the CEOs hearts, this ain't Japan and we're not Japanese. Yes, I recognize that a company does not exist to provide good jobs to people, that is where conservatives are right and the left are wrong. But, that situation is remedied through threat of unionization or outright unionization. It is in this way that the tug of war between maximum profit and worker satisfaction is achieved
If you agree then you totally misunderstand basic economic principles.
If people will pay an extra $1000 per car then GM will charge it.
Why does it matter to you if that money goes to the union workers building the car or the CEO?
Well, if we are deciding to work with basic economics, we need to establish that the money that GM pockets will go into expanding the company, making more jobs, etc,. OR they could lower the price and sell more, equilibrium right?
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.
