Thoughts on Unions, Ohio Senate Bill 5, and a possible paradigm shift

I have no quarrel with unionization. Not only is the freedom of assembly paramount to all freedom, it should be encouraged.

These are my core issues with this current paradigm.

1. Unions, like their Corporate counterparts, have special rights and privileges that go beyond basic human liberties. Neither Unions nor Corporations should have 'rights'. Individual people have rights.

2. With these government granted privileges comes power. Like Corporations who take advantage of a limited liability and bailouts, Unions utilize state power to essentially take over a work force.

3. The people that supposedly make up a union are separate from the Union itself. The Union acts on its own behalf and on the behalf of the actual laborers when it needs to do so to maintain its position of authority.

4. Overly complicated. In the present state of technology and social interaction, the bulk of the gear turns that Unions provide their members can be done almost effortlessly and at very low cost. If a union truly has only the interest of its members at heart, they would find ways for the union dues to be less to almost nothing. They cannot do that because th union leaders do not want to lose their positions.

5. The system is broke. The entire corporation/union system cannot continue. It is financially unsustainable and it is unethical to bail out the system when it does break (GM/UAW). If we go to a new system based on actual human rights and voluntary association, we can save this.



Ohio Senate Bill 5 is all kinds of crazy around Columbus at the moment. The heart of it is the Public Sector Unions.

-Main issue with why I think its hilarious that Public Sector Workers are losing certain privileges(yes, screw them).

The present form of unions were created for a way for the employers and employee's to settle agreements through government force (collective bargaining). What happens when the employer has the power to print money, take more from the rest of us, and borrow money from the future generations? Not only this, the employer is the same entity that would settle the disagreement in the event of collective bargaining.

You have yourself a cocktail of a government trying to maintain power, unions trying to maintain power, and seemingly endless coffers from which to take money from the rest of us. Exactly what happens is what we are witnessing. The government work becomes less productive (not a word I like using for gov't work but I mean the people working suck at it), unnecessary jobs are created on the backs of the public, and it gets worse and worse like a feedback loop.

Public Sector Unions have the same issues regular Unions (in this present system) have, but exponentially worse. Governments do not have to worry about pleasing its board of investors. They lie, cheat, and steal with impunity. The public sector work force is exactly that.... work through force. Public Sector Unions not only have the inherent problems that government backed unions have, they have the additional problem of being part of the government.


Is it too much to ask for the amount of money the american people get taken from them every year to be utilized for tangible goods and services? Why is this a left/right issue? Efficiency should be the first thing both conservatives and liberals think about when they think reform.

Coming at you at the speed of government......

I do not think that Unions are useful and outlive their shelf life so to speak. There are so many legislative processes in place that is easy to sue a employer for illegal employment practices and that they did serve a purpose in the past. I think there is no difference in a union and a elected congress. Because apparently neither one can provide us health care, jobs, benefits, or even retirement, but they have no problem taking $$$ from our checks.

Originally posted by fatherj
I do not think that Unions are useful and outlive their shelf life so to speak. There are so many legislative processes in place that is easy to sue a employer for illegal employment practices and that they did serve a purpose in the past. I think there is no difference in a union and a elected congress. Because apparently neither one can provide us health care, jobs, benefits, or even retirement, but they have no problem taking $$$ from our checks.

My union provides me with both a retirement, health care, benefits and a job. I have no problem paying my union dues because the production companies contribute nothing except wages. And I waited 9 years to finally get paid on a production and only then because the UNION sued them.

www.aftra.org...

www.sag.org...

have you heard of google?

Without union representation you are at the mercy of the corporation. Think Walmart...

www.dailycampus.com...
www.workdayminnesota.org...

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!

reply to post by whaaa

My union provides me with both a retirement, health care, benefits and a job.

Your employer provides you with those things.

Without union representation you are at the mercy of the corporation.

Not true. Honda and other transplant auto companies operate large facilities all over the Midwest and always seem to turn away unionization because they treat their employee's fairly on their own. This 'us' and 'them' mentality that the union pushes is riddling your brain.

Of course they tell you that without them you will be treated poorly.... their cushy jobs rely on your obedience.

Having a Union like this won't stop abuse, it just changes the abuser.

Unions as they stand are a remnant of the past. We need to find cheaper, better, more efficient ways to unionize such that the problems inherent in the current system are gone for good.

We live in a producer/parasite world as it stands. Some people have idea's, skills, and dreams..... they make things. Some people have manipulations, lawyers, and loopholes..... they take things. These parasites transcend government/corporation/and union.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by whaaa

 

My union provides me with both a retirement, health care, benefits and a job.

Your employer provides you with those things.

How do you come to that conclusion. My union dues in a collective, wisely invested are what provide me with those things. The production companies don't pay squat except wages. If I wasn't a member of a union I couldn't get a job because all large productions are union shop. In an effort to increase profits the production companies would hire scabs but we have the skills, background, training and experience. I spent a lot of money on my education and served an apprenticeship. I work hard at my craft, I'm an artist and I'm proud of what I contribute to the film. Why shouldn't we/I be paid fairly for that?

Leaving the workers, the people that actually get their hands dirty, at the mercy of management and the bean counters and lawyers is fascism pure and simple. Is that what you want?

edit on 3-4-2011 by whaaa because: rice, taters y pesole

reply to post by whaaa

Leaving the workers, the people that actually get their hands dirty, at the mercy of management and the bean counters and lawyers is fascism pure and simple. Is that what you want?

In the current state of labor unions, you are at the mercy of management, bean counters, and lawyers with or without a union.

So your paradigm is this...... if I disapprove of the current state of the labor market, I am fascist.

How can I be fascist if I am the one advocating a decentralization of power and the empowerment of the individual?

Your straw man is dead.

I spent a lot of money on my education

So you must be owed something I take it? The fact that you spent a metric crap-ton of money on your education may have more to do with the cost of education than you being entitled to work in your field. As someone who has worked in a variety of fields, having "an education" does not equate to being educated.

This sounds an awful lot like elitism.

If I wasn't a member of a union I couldn't get a job because all large productions are union shop.

That sounds kind of like a monopoly. Ever play Monopoly?

In an effort to increase profits the production companies would hire scabs but we have the skills, background, training and experience.

Astronauts were glorified chimps in those early space craft.

If these scabs can do the work you do, good for them and maybe you need to look for other work. Anyway, scabs need jobs too. Is this argument that scabs can do the work that other people with more training, background, and skills? Maybe the training is unnecessary.

Having worked in a similar field I say that this argument does not hold water.

The production companies you work for need good workers, the labor union does not secure these positions for qualified people, the mere fact that qualified people are necessary for the profits of the company does.

Your union is using scare tactics in securing its own earnings so it can continue existing in a world that can create labor unions more efficiently and at less cost to its members.

Webster defines a UNION as a " political unit formed from previously independent people or organizations." By that definition alone, doesn't it give you the impression that a union is formed by taking away a person or groups individual rights?