At this point in the U.S. what purpose does a Union serve anymore? I understand in the early days of industry they were a necessity, but with the laws in place to protect workers aren't they just another layer of bureaucracy?

 

I think all states should move to becoming open shop states so that employees can have the right to join or not join a union as they see fit. If the union is truly worth it, then they have nothing to worry about in regards to membership.

I don't have the numbers on me right now, but the states that have open shop laws have fared significantly better in terms of average wages of all workers, but more importantly in terms of economic growth.

 

Unions should still exist but in an entirely voluntary form. Any compulsion to make someone join a union or deny an employer the right to hire non-union workers is an invasion of our liberty and unAmerican.

Unions are bad for good workers and good for bad workers. Unions actually have the effect of compressing the work force into the average in regards to pay, benefits and promotion.

 

I agree that with the strict enforcement of labor laws, there is no necessity for labor unions.

The unions have become such a potent force in politics that their "importance" will never be diminished as evidenced by the President's concessions to the UAW vs. the shareholders of GM and Chrysler. That won't change anytime soon.

 

They use that political clout to do things like defeat right to work legislation in states and push prevailing wage laws on cities. It's a 100% corrupt system that needs to go.

Unions COULD be good for both employees and businesses. Unfortunately, too many unions choose to be good for themselves.

My only experience with a union was when I was a "courteousy clerk" carry out boy at Kroger's. I made minimum wage and that was all I made or ever would even if I worked there for 30 years. They took my dues every week but I didn't see any benefits from them period. :idunno::idunno:

Unions COULD be good for both employees and businesses. Unfortunately, too many unions choose to be good for themselves.

 

I agree. There are still some good unions out there, but we don't hear much about them. However, my experience with unions has not been good.

 

- 1980's - Union tried to organize at company I worked at. Told blatant lies while trying to organize AND made promises on what they would get done. Iron clad guarantees, ... verbally. Quoted pay rates for the same jobs in NYC and said that is what those in SEKY ought to make as well. What cost them, was when asked by some interested if they would put those guarantees in writing, they would not.

- Did organize at another company in our area. After 1 year, and no changes to anything, workers voted union back out.

 

- 1990s -I was a manager for a worldwide company and my area was WV. Union tried to organize there. Stood outside several of my locations telling blatant lies to customers and employees. Stated that my employees made minimum wage, did not have health or life insurance, did not recieve sick or vacation time, had no retirement plan, and much more. Everything they said were total lies. Several of my employees responded to those picketing the locations where they worked at and told him the benefits they had. The picketer's response? No you don't, you just think you do. Then one employee showed him their pay stub and that they made more than minimum, paid a small premium for health insurance, had vacation & sick time accrued, etc. That picketer said 'well, looks like the union lied to me again' and he left the site. Same union was picketing all over the country at our locations. They bought a share in the company and showed up for a board meeting. After the meeting, they told the CEO "We will work with you. If you will certify us in all your cities, then you won't have to give much of anything." His response "If my employees won't certify you, why would I? So you could make money off of them through union dues while they get nothing more than they have now?" Their response was "Then be prepared for a fight old man." They NEVER got enough interest to even bring up a vote.

 

For several unions, it is all about membership and generating more income through union dues. It should be about the workers as that is why unions were established, ... to root out mistreatment and greed and assist workers in bettering their lives. Sadly, too many are not anymore.

Unions provide a leverage of power to workers who would otherwise not have any. I'm not going to defend all union actions, because many are indefensible in my opinion, but they do still have a need.

 

This assumption that worker exploitation no longer exist is naive if not silly, and to remove unions would remove a very strong check on the power of large employers.

 

The fact is that unions have done a large part in our history to bring workers out of the "working poor" category. Remove them and I see just about all nonskilled labor returning to working poor status.

 

The dependence on laws to protect employees alone is not really feasible. Nearly every employer will have access to stronger legal counsel than workers and the simply concern over employer retribution will prevent nearly all but the most egregious actions from being challenged.

 

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of open shop, but I do see where it could be used to isolate and punish union members so as to reduce the membership.

 

Again it is all about power, I believe to much power on either side causes problems. Even as a former employer (actually especially as a former employer) I see a great deal of problems giving employers complete power in the employee worker relationship, which is really what this is all about.

Unions provide a leverage of power to workers who would otherwise not have any. I'm not going to defend all union actions, because many are indefensible in my opinion, but they do still have a need.

 

This assumption that worker exploitation no longer exist is naive if not silly, and to remove unions would remove a very strong check on the power of large employers.

 

The fact is that unions have done a large part in our history to bring workers out of the "working poor" category. Remove them and I see just about all nonskilled labor returning to working poor status.

 

The dependence on laws to protect employees alone is not really feasible. Nearly every employer will have access to stronger legal counsel than workers and the simply concern over employer retribution will prevent nearly all but the most egregious actions from being challenged.

 

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of open shop, but I do see where it could be used to isolate and punish union members so as to reduce the membership.

 

Again it is all about power, I believe to much power on either side causes problems. Even as a former employer (actually especially as a former employer) I see a great deal of problems giving employers complete power in the employee worker relationship, which is really what this is all about.

 

Do non union businesses experience these "problems" that you see? If not then how do you explain that statement?

Unions provide a leverage of power to workers who would otherwise not have any. I'm not going to defend all union actions, because many are indefensible in my opinion, but they do still have a need.

 

This assumption that worker exploitation no longer exist is naive if not silly, and to remove unions would remove a very strong check on the power of large employers.

 

The fact is that unions have done a large part in our history to bring workers out of the "working poor" category. Remove them and I see just about all nonskilled labor returning to working poor status.

 

The dependence on laws to protect employees alone is not really feasible. Nearly every employer will have access to stronger legal counsel than workers and the simply concern over employer retribution will prevent nearly all but the most egregious actions from being challenged.

 

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of open shop, but I do see where it could be used to isolate and punish union members so as to reduce the membership.

 

Again it is all about power, I believe to much power on either side causes problems. Even as a former employer (actually especially as a former employer) I see a great deal of problems giving employers complete power in the employee worker relationship, which is really what this is all about.

Of the bolded text above, I have never seen that happen. In fact, most state laws, in open shop states, prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Unions provide a leverage of power to workers who would otherwise not have any. I'm not going to defend all union actions, because many are indefensible in my opinion, but they do still have a need.

 

This assumption that worker exploitation no longer exist is naive if not silly, and to remove unions would remove a very strong check on the power of large employers.

 

The fact is that unions have done a large part in our history to bring workers out of the "working poor" category. Remove them and I see just about all nonskilled labor returning to working poor status.

 

The dependence on laws to protect employees alone is not really feasible. Nearly every employer will have access to stronger legal counsel than workers and the simply concern over employer retribution will prevent nearly all but the most egregious actions from being challenged.

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of open shop, but I do see where it could be used to isolate and punish union members so as to reduce the membership.

 

Again it is all about power, I believe to much power on either side causes problems. Even as a former employer (actually especially as a former employer) I see a great deal of problems giving employers complete power in the employee worker relationship, which is really what this is all about.

I don't know about Kentucky, but in Florida, an Open Shop state, reported violations are investigated by the state labor board. These are state laws, not civil matters. Believe me, I've benefited from and have had to deal with violations of these laws and have seen their applications. It's no different than the Fire Marshal coming into a facility and finding violations. The company has to take on the the state, not an individual.

I have been involved with unions for the past 12 years, due to my job. I can see both sides of the argument. To me, unions can be a great asset when used properly. But, when their powers are abused, they can be the biggest hinderance of all.

 

Unions can be benificial when it comes to working conditions, pay rates, and disciplinary actions. A good union rep, or steward, should stand up for their members, and do what is best for them.

 

On the other hand, I have seen members abuse the system for their own benefit. Back during the 70's, it was nothing for union coal miners to decide to strike for a couple of days just so they could have the weekend off. That kind of mentality, along with greed and power hunger from the higher levels, make me wonder if the union is worth having around, period.

Thanks to a Union my wife received back pay and benefits after she was unjustly fired. However I certainly see the arguments against Unions. And the same Union that really came through for us in a bad situation (Communication Workers of America) have also done other things and made concessions that haven't been in the best interest of the employees.

 

I guess I fall in the "Unions are fine as an employee advocacy group" but not good in a "Unions operate as a political group" like so many do.

 

I used to work somewhere where about 40 employees started meeting and trying to unionize. I was in management and ended up in Seattle for two days at the company's headquarters being trained on how to dissuade people from unionizing. It boiled down- "If they unionize we will shut you down." One of the other branches voted to unionize and the next week it was closed. I went back and mostly kept my mouth shut. The ones trying to unionize were not in my group and when came to a vote a few weeks later they overwhlemingly voted NOT to unionize. Probably saved their jobs (which were not that bad and paid pretty well) in the process.

Thanks to a Union my wife received back pay and benefits after she was unjustly fired. However I certainly see the arguments against Unions. And the same Union that really came through for us in a bad situation (Communication Workers of America) have also done other things and made concessions that haven't been in the best interest of the employees.

 

I guess I fall in the "Unions are fine as an employee advocacy group" but not good in a "Unions operate as a political group" like so many do.

I used to work somewhere where about 40 employees started meeting and trying to unionize. I was in management and ended up in Seattle for two days at the company's headquarters being trained on how to dissuade people from unionizing. It boiled down- "If they unionize we will shut you down." One of the other branches voted to unionize and the next week it was closed. I went back and mostly kept my mouth shut. The ones trying to unionize were not in my group and when came to a vote a few weeks later they overwhlemingly voted NOT to unionize. Probably saved their jobs (which were not that bad and paid pretty well) in the process.

 

Though I tend to be very anti-union, your assessment seems very fair to me.

My only experience with a union was when I was a "courteousy clerk" carry out boy at Kroger's. I made minimum wage and that was all I made or ever would even if I worked there for 30 years. They took my dues every week but I didn't see any benefits from them period. :idunno::idunno:

 

I agree with you about Krogers union - they take your dues every week and you have to be a member of the union - they put people in place as a representative in the store but if you attempt to get a response to a question or a situation they are clueless or they jerk you around until you get tired of dealing with them. I personally have never worked for Krogers but my daughter did and she went away to college but wanted to maintain her position so that when she came back for a break in college or even a weekend she would have a job to still work - the representative basically passed the buck - my daughter had to do all of the contacts in order to ensure she would have a position. Overall I believe that union do not serve the purpose that they did in the past - unions at one point were a major force but have lost a lot of their luster.