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.
You may as well ask why the whole American political system is skewed to the right, relative to most other nations.
So why is the USA skewed to the right, religion etc etc etc ? One big difference a mate and I noticed is that the vast majority of Americans seem to be out for themselves. Which is different from Aus,Can,NZ and the UK where the motto is a fair go for all. One could say we have different values
So why is the USA skewed to the right, religion etc etc etc ? One big difference a mate and I noticed is that the vast majority of Americans seem to be out for themselves. Which is different from Aus,Can,NZ and the UK where the motto is a fair go for all. One could say we have different values
This book, 'Who Stole the American Dream', really gives a straightforward account as to what happened in the US. I saw the author speak at the University of Colorado.
So why is the USA skewed to the right, religion etc etc etc ? One big difference a mate and I noticed is that the vast majority of Americans seem to be out for themselves. Which is different from Aus,Can,NZ and the UK where the motto is a fair go for all. One could say we have different values
Yes, we are a nation with a culture that values rugged independence. Our nation's founders traveled in small parties to leave the protection of established rule in other nations to plot their own destiny. That is something we have carried with us through time.
What does this have to do with unions? Not much if you ask me. That's simply a matter of labor standing up collectively to another collective body (management). Kind of like how the states banded together to stand up to the British. Consider another historical model... Divide, we fall.
Don't forget this historical image...
Obviously, we also have a history that values Camaraderie in the face of larger opposition, when push comes to shove anyways.
You are still misunderstanding the situation. It is true that non-union workers are paid lower wages, and would be paid higher wages if they unionized. But, higher wages does not guarantee better access to goods and services. For instance, we raise the minimum wage, and the working poor don't suddenly become better off. Just like if we raised the minimum wage to $100 an hour, the working poor wouldn't end up better off. Because all raising wages does, is cause prices to go up. If all non-union workers unionized tomorrow. The price of goods and services would rise dramatically.
Right now, union workers get better compensation, enabling them to buy more houses, cars, boats. To go on cruises, to eat out, to go to movies, have access to better medical care, etc, etc. Now, those things they purchase have to be provided or produced by someone. And if all workers were unionized, the items that current union members purchase, will necessarily go up in price. Thus, if all workers unionized, the current union workers would actually be worse off. Because they would lose buying power. Unless somehow you can increase the buying power of previously non-union workers without affecting the buying power of union workers. Which is absolutely impossible unless the increased buying power of previously non-union workers was accompanied by a relative increase in the availability of goods and services.
The point is, there basically aren't enough goods and services produced in this country that would enable everyone in this country to live like someone who currently makes $70k a year in total compensation(wages, benefits, retirement, etc). And the problem with unions is that their result isn't to produce a more equitable share for everyone in society. Their goal is only to provide a larger piece of the pie for their members. And their larger piece of the pie always ends up leaving the poor with a smaller piece of the pie.
And even worse, unions tend to be so protectionist. They tend to opposed heavily to both free-trade, and even immigration. Because immigrants to them represent cheap labor and competition. In a sense, not only do unions end up making poor Americans even poorer. But they help to keep the poor in other countries in poverty as well. Unions are the exact opposite of humanitarians. And in their absence, not only would many Americans be better off. But the world would be better off.
If you start looking at the history of unions. You start to understand how destructive they are.
Yet corporate greed to make more and more mega billions, which eventually turns around and backfires, is mainly what brings on great recessions.
I'm fine with unions as long as they don't true using the government to enforce what they want. if workers of a company want to unionize then they have that right, but the company also should have the right to hire and fire as they please and face the consequences of those actions.
Lions Club is an organization that benefits everyone but does not force non-members to pay dues. It is relevant. And since when did unions start passing out paychecks anyway???? lols. Employers pass out paychecks, not unions.
No one can make me work under conditions I don't agree with. Period. Unless maybe I'm in a communist country or something.
And you keep saying I don't have to work there. Why should a union deny me the right to work somewhere if I don't wanna pay dues to a club I don't belong to? You can't give a legit answer so you say "don't work there" Why do you get to decide where someone else works? I never heard a non-union person tell a union person where to work. What makes unions so special they can decide who works where? If unions were about workers like they claim they would have no problem with people working where they want.
Some of your questioning doesn't make much sense. But I did give a very legit response. Again, labor unions have the legal right to collect money from all workers in a unionized workplace as a means to cover their operating expenses. Arbitrators do not charge ZERO for their services to unions. Labor contracts don't cost zero to write. In turn, though, corporate and other interests, who don't agree, have the right to deny unions to do that by trying to establish Right to Work in states that don't have it. But in rather rare instances, a corporation may actually oppose efforts to bring in Right to Work, because the union is managing and distributing the company benefits, saving the company the expense of having to do that. Under Right to Work, the union would lose the right to do that.
Quite frankly, after you having admitted to never having been a labor union member before, I can't attach much value to your opinions on the subject. I have greater respect for a person's opinion on unions, who has actually experienced the joys and disappointments of being an actual union member.
And whats worse is that, most of the unions wouldn't even exist in the absence of the government protecting them. The laws enable the unions to require workers be part of the union just to have a job. Government has consistently come in on the side of unions, refusing for instance to remove or arrest workers in their "sit down" protests, to prevent "scabs" from replacing them. If the government no longer protected the unions. Almost every union in this country would practically disappear overnight. With "scabs" replacing those spoiled union brats.
Obviously, you haven't heard what's in the Taft-Hartley Act. For one thing, it sure as hell wasn't created to enable unions to require workers to become labor union members just to secure jobs.
The government has sure done a damned sorry job of protecting unions, though, since union membership has fallen to just 6% of the private labor force. At all, or much of the federal government worker level, unions don't have the right to deduct money from non-union member paychecks with strikes against the law.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 06-21-2013 at 01:01 AM..
It is nearly useless to compare life in Luxembourg and Norway to the US. Neither of those two countries are diverse, and are immensely "rich" per capita. The US could take all the money from its billionaires and it would produce a short-lived drop in the national debt, or worse, a burst in government spending. Luxembourg is about the size of Kansas City and is either the 1st or 2nd richest country in the world (GDP per capita). Norway has vast natural resources (oil) to pay for the rich social services of its 5M people.
The point, however, was making such a comparison, and I was pointing out why that was less than straightforwards.
Diversity never stopped the US from doing well in science, military, or space endavours. Or small business creation, or providing opportunity. It only get trotted out as an excuse for not measuring up when some area isn't doing well. God forbid America should actually have to work to keep up with other countries! Lets pretend its still the 50s and all possible competition is bombed to ruins!
Oh, and Norway doesn't spend any of its oil money, that is being saved up in a sovereign wealth fund. Which owns almost 2 % of all publically listed stocks on earth now. Sweden and Denmark provides similar benefits without oil.
I lean pretty far to the left, on almost every topic - save this one. There are more cost-effective methods of collectively bargaining for better benefits or pay. A Union's goal is self-serving. They are a greedy Third-Party whose sole purpose is to collect dues from hard working people, to pay for administrative expenses incurred by the 3rd Party (the Union Reps.)
If staff and labor are unhappy with management conditions, they can always petition management directly, and can even organize without an outside union.
Skills are the commodity which is almost always lacking when it comes to union members. If you don't like low pay - go to night school. Unions hurt workers, and they are impossible for undereducated workers to decertify, because they don't know how to, and their Union sure as heck isn't going to educate them on how to DE-certify, at least not to the extent they educate labor on how to CERTIFY themselves. It's a catch-22 really.
Public Unions rob tax payers to fund Union Boss salaries, while providing no real good to the community, except higher wages and pension benefits for PUBLIC servants.
If you don't like working 80 hours a week, don't be a teacher. You deserve the pay, but your Union does not. They are the TRUE welfare recipients.
Undereducated workers one doubts that with all my lads being tradesmen or better. So you believe a twenty one year old American tradesman is as good as I am in negotiating pay and conditions ? wonder why he ended up going without profit share if he was so good at negotiating.
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.
