It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

hypocritical hatred for unions by conservatives?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
It is beyond me, why so many conservatives hold this great dislike for unions. There is this idea passed on by conservative members on here and outside day in and day out about the free market and about the advantages of allowing employers to dictate by action and by consequence over how they pay their employees. We hear this same talk about the constitution, about the right for people to petition, to assemble. So what is this issue with unions? Unions are private, they are not government mandated, atleast not in this country, they are a collection of people who decided to unite for an agenda. This is no different to what a typical corporation or organisation would do. Private businesses are of the agenda to make profit, organisations are of the agenda to promote an ideal or belief, and unions? Unions hold the agenda of promoting the interests of workers? Sometimes it is political but ultimately there is that agenda. What is the difference? Reading up on the Heritage foundation:


Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

www.heritage.org...

There are plenty of further arguments made by the heritage foundation, but this one is at core. The fact that many employers find themselves accountable to private unions, and the fact that unions cost businesses and pass on those costs. However this arguement falls upon itself for any self proclaimed freemarketer. A Private institution consists of members who hold an agenda to assure they maximize their benefits through labour, just as businesses are in the business for maximizing their profit. Why must unions be singled out? We must recognize aswell that businesses are not forced to hire people who join Unions. It is true they are under pressure to do this because they know the vast majority of workers are part of unions and the influence unions hold, but they recognize a consequence and they accept it, just as millions of workers accept that they may not get the fair wage they want out of many other businesses.

So are unions innocent or perfect? Nope, and the heritage foundation along with other conservative groups waste no time making this fact known:

Union Intimidation a Problem
Conversely, labor activists regularly downplay the possibility that unions would intimidate workers. They claim that there have been only 42 cases of forgery or coercion in card-check drives in the past 60 years. This is false.
www.heritage.org...

Yep, apparently there are bad unions, so this makes the idea of a union almost criminal by the standards of the heritage foundation and many other conservative groups. Whats more, we hear time and time again of the acts committed by the labour unions over the years in damaging private property and in threatening individuals. But how on earth is this a valid argument against the idea of the union if the "private business" can be held accountable for equal for similar acts over the years? Neither are perfect, evidently.

It makes absolutely no sense to me what so ever, that people continiously complain about labour unions and their agenda, while insisting that the greed and profit making agenda of many corporations are necessary evils in the capitalist system. At the end of the day unions and businesses are no different, so why treat them differently? In my opinion, both sides are essential to balancing the economic system, along with necessary regulations to assure they are accountable over crimes. Any true free market advocate in my opinion would not distinguish the two.




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


in my experience with unions they are only good for keeping people that should be fired from being fired. and your wrong about unions not being mandated by the government.

See in most states if its a union shop you have to join the union whether you want to or not, you don't have a choice. If you live in a state that has a right to work law then you don't have to join the union. if you don't live in a right to work state then by law you have to join the union if its a union shop.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The "idea" of a union is great..

But in practice it's the usual, power corrupts, absolute power yadah yadah..

The few bad unions spoil a good concept..



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


in my experience with unions they are only good for keeping people that should be fired from being fired.


While I have not come across a union member that was lazy and managed to keep their jobs, I have no doubt that does exist. That being said, almost all the union members I know, friends and family, are hard working people who are just out to look after their families and their well being. Without the unions they would be at the complete mercy of their employer and that is just the way I see it. I think you are putting a strong generalization over union members.


and your wrong about unions not being mandated by the government.


I'd be curious to know as to which employers are forced to join unions? I certainly do not support such a measure, it sould be completely by choice. Do you have any links?


See in most states if its a union shop you have to join the union whether you want to or not, you don't have a choice.


Actually you do, you have a choice of employer, if that is a choice. Employers readily and willingly align themselves, and they are completely within their right and choice to do so. It has little to nothing to do with the government. I am surprised you are blaming the unions for a choice made by a private employer.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Let me give you an example... I had an uncle who owned 5 trucks and each truck had two men that worked on it. They were highly skilled in what they did - moving heavy equipment. So in this case each man multi-tasked, drove the trucks, assembled the cranes, moved the equipment etc. and all made a very good living.

Well most of the business came from the government so when the government decided that they had to be union workers - workers that lacked the combined skill sets that these ten men had - the business was either forced to close or hire another 40 people. They closed.

So unions had there time and were necessary at one time to check the abuses of management. But in this day and age they may be harming businesses and people wanting work more than they help them.

Then you have the cases of where it is near impossible to fire someone in a union like Teachers or Cops - definitely not good for the general public.

And of course let's not forget the Soviet Union...

edit on 13-1-2011 by EssenSieMich because: spelling



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


in my experience with unions they are only good for keeping people that should be fired from being fired.





In my experience as a union guy SAG/AFTRA, I get paid a fair wage for my education, apprenticeship, experience and dedication to my craft. If it weren't for our union lawyers the production companies would skip out and not pay us at all. I waited 9 years to get paid for "Young Guns". What would you have us do...eat it?
When you deal with companies where the bottom line is the main focus; they will screw the working man every time while the CEOs get bonuses, stock options and other perks the working man can only dream about.
edit on 13-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The "idea" of a union is great..

But in practice it's the usual, power corrupts, absolute power yadah yadah..

The few bad unions spoil a good concept..


That is to assume that the concept of the Union is perfect, which it is not. The same can be said for capitalism, it is not perfect, even with the regulations we have in place, but overall it is workable and essential. There will be bad businesses and there will be bad unions, and I think regulation is essential to weeding out these kinds of organisations, but there will never be a perfect concept. Such a thing does not exist.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


I'm in Australia but here's another good example..

The waterfront workers union here was ALL powerfull..
Once a cargo ship came in with the then new Leopard Tanks that our defence force had ordered..
When Army personel went to collect the Tanks they were told NO because they were not in the union..

The ship was held in port for weeks while some dock workers were trained to drive the tanks the few hundred meters off the dock..

That's Union power gone mad..!!!!



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by EssenSieMich
Well most of the business came from the government so when the government decided that they had to be union workers -


I see your point here, but then again government will always make choices when dealing with private organizations. There will always be a bias with every government in place. Reagan, when he was in office, began and all out war on Unions, he fired 13,000 air traffic controllers, for example, as a direct attack against the unions at the time. The fact is, the dealings made by government through private organizations, it is never clear cut, and you will get mixed views as to whether that action was right by the public. I don't see how this is the Unions fault at the end of the day. They benefit, just as many corporations and private organisations have by many governments over our time.

I am sorry your uncles business lost out, but then again those workers had a choice, your uncle had a choice, there was favouritism by a client, which in this case was the government, but thats how the world turns. If this was a completely private organization as opposed to the government favouriting union workers, would you still feel that this was unfair?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
What happens when your company cancels your health insurance, loses your retirement in the stock mkt,you get hurt on the job, replaces you with a younger less experienced worker for less money? Think it doesn't happen? You pray for union representation then but you are SOL.


edit on 13-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

While I have not come across a union member that was lazy and managed to keep their jobs, I have no doubt that does exist. That being said, almost all the union members I know, friends and family, are hard working people who are just out to look after their families and their well being. Without the unions they would be at the complete mercy of their employer and that is just the way I see it. I think you are putting a strong generalization over union members.


Were those friends and family all in the same union? if so then it sounds like a decent union. But like i said in my own experience with unions the lazy don't want to really work and just collect a paycheck are the ones that kept their jobs and the hard working always on time and willing to do a little extra was the ones shown the door and the union didn't lift a finger to help them.

I'll give you a personal example. my first job out of high school i worked for a major corp. that processes poultry. one night i was put on a machine the seperates the leg quarters from the carcus of the bird and then sends the leg quarters down the line to a group of people that would cut the drumstick from the thigh and then debone the thigh meat before sending it down the line. usually i worked the line right after that machine but that night the assitant supervisor wanted me to run the machine. while i was on the machine one of the other guys took my knives and sharping steel to use. and while he was using them somehow they ended up in a barrel of bones that went to a grinder. the knives and steel went through the grinder doing several thousands of dollars damage. i got called to the office to be written up for it because it was my knives and steel even though i was running the machine and had left them hanging on a hook on the wall where i was suppose to leave them.

i was called to the supervisors office along with a union steward and the assistant supervisor. the advice from my union steward after hearing my side of the story and the guy that took my equipment admitted he took my equipment without my knowledge was to sign the write up and pray the company didn't sue me for the damages. the guy that actually took my equipment was told to go back to the line and keep working. The Assist supervisor actually stood up for me and told the supervisor it wasn't right to write me up for it since i had been running the machine all night and had left my equipment on the wall where i was suppose to and it wasn't my fault that another employee took my equipment without my consent.

in the end the supervisor agreed and just gave me a warning to keep better track of my equipment.

the same guy that took my equipment was always late to work when he came to work was always late coming back from breaks always walking away from the line to talk to his girlfriend was taken to the office to be written up on his work performance and tardiness. each time the union fought to keep his job even though he should have been fired long before he finally quit for a "better" job

now as for being at the mercy of the employer. a year later i transfered from a union position to a non union position in the company. not only was my pay better than the union employees but my insurance and retirement benefits were better and i got more vaction and sick time than the union employees. and the bets thing about it was i didn't have to ask the company for it either. and i wasn't afraid of a lock out if the union didn't get a new contract. (and in my time at that company the old contract came up for renewal and the company offered the union a better deal and the head of the union turned it down because he felt the union deserved more even though the union employees voted to approve the new contract) and a few other union shops i've worked at and have known people that have worked for them was all the same.



I'd be curious to know as to which employers are forced to join unions? I certainly do not support such a measure, it sould be completely by choice. Do you have any links?


its the employees not the employers that are forced to join unions Southern, if the employer has agreed to unionize the shop in non right to work states the employee must join the union if the position he is hired on for is a union job. and no the employer doesn't have to tell you its a union shop before they hire you so if you don't know before hand your only options are to join the union or quit the job on the first day when you fill out your union papers.

And don't get me started on the UAW. I drove a truck for a few years and delivered to several of their shops. I'll just say and people wondered why the automakers needed a bailout. 90% of the blame rests on the shoulders of the UAW for their bailouts.

Are all unions bad? probably not. but there are more bad apples than good apples when it comes to unions, and honestly the time for unions has come and gone. these days they do more harm than good for the people they are suppose to "protect"



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Being toward the conservative slant, I have not one problem with unions, in the private sector.

Not so much with the public sector, too many similarities to another form of government, where the PARTY gains control by the very resources it steals from the citizens.

Hmmmm, what I am referring to?

Did not work out so well for Bell California specifically and California seems to be headed towards Greece type austerity.
edit on 13-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Reminds me of Walt Disney. He despised communists, yet thought of his corporation as a big family and being a big family was supposed to offset the fact he payed less than many other studios. Of course he hated unions too, because demanding more capital for your work is so communist.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I live in the heart of the Rust Belt and I can attest to the former need for unions in an effort to protect workers (OSHA now protects them) and to pay them a fair wage. However, in my area, Cleveland, the unions have had their day and have lost plenty of jobs that will never return. Fortunately, the UAW still maintains some productivity in my area with several Ford operations but that's it.

The unions of old got greedy and sought the power that rose from the greed. The greed and sense of entitlement trickled down to the hourly workers on the line. Suddenly, the concept of merit reviews, merit pay increases and accountability was thrown out the window. Entitlements took over, manufacturing quality fell short and the companies as a whole paid the price as the competition from foreign manufacturers began to trounce them. Greed and entitlement!! Simple. Fat pensions, guaranteed raises, ridiculous vacation allowances and perks.

Unions became a mini form of a centralized government with the power to threaten and leverage while rarely conceding anything to their employers. I've seen people (management level) severely injured for no reason other than crossing picket lines to get into the plant to keep it running and to keep it productive enough to continue to pay for its striking workers

I still can't figure out why govt. employees at all levels are able to unionize. Professional sports unions? Really? I guess they are not paid enough and work in terrible conditions. Unions have morphed into simple political machines. They pay members to protest companies who freely choose not to unionize for cryin' out loud. I just saw 5 UFCW members picketing a local non union grocery chain in Sub Zero conditions yesterday. Why?? Just because the privately owned grocery chain does not want to play their game or be part of their bully philosophy. Does not compute. The unions are free to picket and the company is free to choose not to unionize.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Also, someone should delve into the argument that taxpayer money was used to takeover a company that was helped into non profitability by a union.

Hmmm, buy a government motors car and you pay approximately $2800 for the union pensions. Hmmm, heck of steal.

Wonder when the union tax will be offered up for legislation? You folks have to pay for your enslavement don't you know.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Reminds me of Walt Disney. He despised communists, yet thought of his corporation as a big family and being a big family was supposed to offset the fact he payed less than many other studios. Of course he hated unions too, because demanding more capital for your work is so communist.


I disagree. Walt Disney despised communism but admired capitalism, where as businesses would maximize their financial gain. Walt Disney is an example of the point I am trying to make here, that Unions, and Union members, who are privately organized, are of the same agenda. There is no difference in nature between and corporation or businesses cutting working staff and other corners to maximize financial gain, and unions putting as much influence in member size to assure a maximization in financial gain for works. There is little difference in nature between these two. Business cuts corners to maximize profit, Unions build influence to maximize income for workers from businesses. Same deal.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
However, in my area, Cleveland, the unions have had their day and have lost plenty of jobs that will never return. Fortunately, the UAW still maintains some productivity in my area with several Ford operations but that's it.


How did the Unions cause the loss of further jobs? Was it at core the demand for higher wages? Were jobs shipped off overseas?


The unions of old got greedy and sought the power that rose from the greed.


I believe many Unions are corrupted and greedy, but so are many businesses and many organisations. I do not see any reason why unions should be singled out.


Suddenly, the concept of merit reviews, merit pay increases and accountability was thrown out the window. Entitlements took over, manufacturing quality fell short


Businesses have choices to make, and just as many workers are finding themselves with choices of lower waged jobs and less houses due to the economic environment and businesses shifting jobs overseas, some businesses are finding themselves at the mercy of Unions in which any attempt cut down wages or time or benefits. At the end of the day, just like the capitalist market where people must settle and compete against environmental factors, businesses must compete against other factors themselves. This is not the fault of unions, no. Unions are just apart of that external stakeholder structure, along with suppliers, competing businesses, consumers and so forth.


Unions became a mini form of a centralized government with the power to threaten and leverage


yep, sounds very fimiliar, must like big business? No? Much like political and general organisations? No? And are you to compare unions to big business? If you could let me know about the largest union in the nation and the largest oil corporation in this country and the comparison there, please, by all means.

Your point here is that Unions are a significant player in the economic system, but I see no difference with big businesses and their actions over the years and those of many organisations like CPAC or the NRA. They are all of the agenda, they all can be positive or negative, unions are not to singled out for this fact.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Your point here is that Unions are a significant player in the economic system, but I see no difference with big businesses and their actions over the years and those of many organisations like CPAC or the NRA. They are all of the agenda, they all can be positive or negative, unions are not to singled out for this fact.


You're loosing me here..
Who's singling out unions for critisism.???

Your thread is about Unions, not Big Bussiness..
There are enough threads already dealing with greedy corrupt Big Business...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Who's singling out unions for critisism.???

Your thread is about Unions, not Big Bussiness.


My thread is about generalizing unions for the actions of afew while ignoring those same actions of businesses and organisations. You cannot make the argument tha unions are bad because of the actions of afew, and yet completely leave or ignore those actions of businesses and organisations.

The excuse from many people, conservatives, is that unions are bad because afew union workers made threats in the past, and yet when it comes to the actions of big business or political organisations, all of a sudden, its about the freedom and rights of them to exist. And yes, there are many people who continiously go on about labour unions while insisting that private businesses need less regulation and can do little harm.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I can tell you why unions are singled out.

Because unions in America have coercive powers, that's why.

A free agreement of employees to collectively bargain for wages is perfectly within their rights, but that is NOT what unionization represents in America.

In America, unions are granted COERCIVE POWERS OF FUNDING ENFORCED BY GOVERNMENT- they get their own tax.

Employees who chose not to join a company union STILL HAVE PAY DEDUCTED TO FUND UNION OPERATIONS. So employees HAVE NO CHOICE but to fund a union once one is established. Pay is automatically deducted and handed to the union.

Further, unions have all manner government imposed "rights" that allow them to propagandize a company's labor ON CORPORATE PROPERTY WHILE AT WORK.

The unions are also a political force, so money taken from a companies employees by the union (by force) is then used to fund pro-union political campaigns - which may be entirely against the wishes those employees. The employees have no direct say in the matter.

Further, as the Heritage article points out, unions are economically self-destructive. They drive up labor costs, harm consumers, and artificially drive up unemployment. Those minimum wage laws we have? You can thank unions for those. Unions agitate for a minimum wage that prevents unskilled labor from competing with union positions.

They are an evil blight upon this nation - only because of all the coercive government powers they have.

If 10 members of a company wish to unionize - great.

If 100 members of a company wish to unionize - great.




edit on 13-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join