"Unions are Evil"

[Iplayboard]

For those of you that feel this way, are unions inherently evil or have they just drifted that way?

I think if you deny the fact that unions have played a major role in improving working conditions/worker's rights then you are ignoring part of history. The Jungle should be mandatory reading. If drifts off into becoming a socialist pamphlet but it provides a great picture of working conditions before unions. It also doesn't just paint a rosy picture of unions, but talks about how they were often corrupt and used to exploit workers.

unions create artifically high wages

[Meech]

The primary role of unions is to defend and demand nothing short of mediocrity from every member.

[bobman0330]

I don't believe anyone thinks that unions are evil. Except for the Mafia portions.

A lot of people believe that today's labor movement is essentially anachronistic. Under federal law, unions in certification elections can lie and make all sorts of promises they have no way of keeping ("We'll get you a wage increase"; "We'll keep them from moving jobs to China"), while those same laws restrict the employers ability to fight back. Once unions are in, they have little positive impact and often work harm. Flexible dispute resolution and employer-employee communication are impeded or completely destroyed. Profitability or worker's wages have to decrease to pay for union dues. Employers cannot respond to changing market conditions by freely hiring and firing workers. Strikes wreak havoc on families and are almost never effective in today's world. And most importantly, the working unit changes from a friendly partnership to a hostile divided camp.

The Delphi/GM situation is a lovely illustration of how greedy union politicians trying to look good for the workers can imperil thousands of American jobs and destroy an entire enterprise.

So, in short, unions aren't evil, they're just bad.

[Rick H]

Being the son of a former union organizer, my view may be somewhat skewed. However, this is my opinion:

There WAS a need for unions. The need came because too much "power" was concentrated in the hands of a relatively few, especially if the local area had only one or two major employers.

In many cases, unions are NOW completely at odds with what may be good for the workers as well as the employer. They have changed the balance of power in the employee/employer relationship to an extreme. Now, a relatively few union executives control much more power than the former business owners ever did. If unions were allowed to only represent employees of a single employer, instead of whole industries, perhaps a case could made for their continued existence. But, as has previously been posted, I do think they (unions) tend to perpetuate mediocrity.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
If unions were allowed to only represent employees of a single employer, instead of whole industries,

[/ QUOTE ]

The North American industrial relations model has developed where union locals represent workers at the plant level not industry wide, as in Europe, though there are exceptions.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, a relatively few union executives control much more power than the former business owners ever did.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that any union executive has the power that business owners do? At what level? Executives are elected. Owners aren't. I'd say union executives have far LESS power, legislated that way since the 60s, than they used to. But, sometimes, I wish we were back in the days when I could get some muscle to get even with the things that management does every day, heh.

You're right about there being a change in the balance in the employer/employee balance of power. If you think that unions have somehow made the tilt in favour of the worker, I'm flabbergasted.

In solidarity, Hamish.

[theweatherman]

Further more, the unions SHOULD have more power than the owners. The owners should be in fear of the union's ability to close their business. This way the workers are not exploited (at least as little as is possible since every worker is exploited under capitalism) and the owners get their profit margins.

Claiming the unions have power over the owners is ridiculous. If anything the burracracy of large unions have basically sold out thier constituents to the owners.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, the unions SHOULD have more power than the owners. The owners should be in fear of the union's ability to close their business. This way the workers are not exploited (at least as little as is possible since every worker is exploited under capitalism) and the owners get their profit margins.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a worker is "mistreated" without a union, what keeps him from walking out? Do owners of non-union shops shoot the dissenters? How are workers "exploited"?

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, the unions SHOULD have more power than the owners. The owners should be in fear of the union's ability to close their business. This way the workers are not exploited (at least as little as is possible since every worker is exploited under capitalism) and the owners get their profit margins.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be an anti-capitalist if you believe this. I hope you don't live in the US.

Does the average liberal think like this? I would be really scared if they do.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Unions are NOW completely at odds with what may be good for the workers ... They have changed the balance of power in the employee/employer relationship to an extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the "balance of power" currently resides with the worker more than the owner? (If we are allowed to make such a clear distinction in modern economy, still.)

Then, please point out to me the data which shows the ranks of unions swelling (since being a union member empowers the worker so much, lotsa workers should be rushing to join) or the news items about union action stopping a plant from relocating to a lower-wage region. I'm interested to know.