NationStates Jolt Archive

Just running a post/poll to gather people's opinions on labour unions, strikes, and workers who choose not to participate in picket lines.

Make no misake, my personal disdain for unions has grown as deep as it is for abusive employers. I recognize the need, in some cases, for collective bargaining and labour contracts but I've seen too much union strong-arming of employers and idle and not so idle of threats against workers to believe that most unions operate in the most self-serving and divisive manner. This is most true in the event of a strike where workers through no fault of their own need to work to support their families retain homes, vehicles and the likes and are thus labelled as "scabs", threatened, harassed and often victims of assualt and/or vandalism. On the other hand I can't recall any instance where "scab" workers treated their colleagues who participate in labour action with equal disregard. Unions and individual freedom of action are simply at odds, imho.


Anyhoo, before I go on too long, I would appreciate others' comments, flames, etc. (poll to follow shortly)

Unions and individual freedom of action are simply at odds,
Well people have no power as individuals. What is one worker at a giant super store going to do if he wants a raise or a healthcare plan? Scabs are traitors to their fellow workers which deserve a good pummeling

Well people have no power as individuals. What is one worker at a giant super store going to do if he wants a raise or a healthcare plan? Scabs are traitors to their fellow workers which deserve a good pummeling
I won't go so far as the pummeling bit, but the rest is pretty accurate. Individuals cannot hope to negotiate one on one with employers, not unless their skills are so specialized that they are in demand, but that's not who most union people are. The people for whom unions are the most beneficial are those who are working at positions which advanced specialization is not the norm.

Well people have no power as individuals. What is one worker at a giant super store going to do if he wants a raise or a healthcare plan? Scabs are traitors to their fellow workers which deserve a good pummeling

Well, what if they have to work to support their families, or just want money?People who force someone not to work are just as bad as robber barrens.

My grand father was in the teamster’s union in the sixties. Heck, they wanted to give him some sort of position in it. He declined because he knew how involved the mob was in it, and he didn’t want to get into that. He, along with my great-uncle who was also in the union, tell great jokes about the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The union actually discouraged people from working hard, thus making them less valuable to the employers, thus creating a greater need for unions so the union bosses could hold on to their positions.

Well people have no power as individuals. What is one worker at a giant super store going to do if he wants a raise or a healthcare plan? Scabs are traitors to their fellow workers which deserve a good pummeling


Actually they have all the power in the world to seek better employment. Employers aren't blind nor deaf to the fact they need workers to operate and if they cannot offer competitive employment then people are free to vote with their feet and the business will become uncompetitive if not deserted.

Actually they have all the power in the world to seek better employment. Employers aren't blind nor deaf to the fact they need workers to operate and if they cannot offer competitive employment then people are free to vote with their feet and the business will become uncompetitive if not deserted.
You know what? Never mind. With that kind of attitude, I hope Wal-Mart does take over the labor industry completely and you get to work in their environment for the rest of your life.

You know what? Never mind. With that kind of attitude, I hope Wal-Mart does take over the labor industry completely and you get to work in their environment for the rest of your life.


Really? How nice? Now where did you shop today and how much, rather little, were you willing to pay for it? ;)

... my personal disdain for unions has grown as deep as it is for abusive employers.
My master's thesis was on a subject directly related to this. One of my conclusions was that without the ever-present threat of unionization, many employers would have little or no incentive to engage in effective personnel management. The mere threat of having a union represent employees in their dealings with management is often sufficient to motivate employers to reform their personnel and payroll procedures.

Really? How nice? Now where did you shop today and how much, rather little, were you willing to pay for it? ;)
Didn't do much shopping today, but I haven't been in a Wal-Mart for three years and I'm never going back. I consider it unpatriotic to shop at a place that treats its workers the way they do, that leeches off state health insurance systems and that squeezes US manufacturers out of business so they can buy cheaper from China. And for what? So the stock goes up a penny and the Walton family adds another $20 million to their pockets?

No thanks. I shop at local businesses, and I shop at places like Costco where they pay a living wage to their workers, where they encourage unionization instead of fighting it at every turn and they provide good, affordable health coverage. And you know what? They turn a hell of a profit while doing it.

Besides--recent studies have shown that overall, Wal-mart isn't any cheaper than shopping elsewhere. They're cheaper on high-profile items, but are actually more expensive on much of the everyday stuff.

without labor unions, there are no union fees. Without union fees, the workers can keep more money for themselves

...where they encourage unionization instead of fighting it at every turn...

The Wal-Mart employees voted not to have a union…

You spelled Labor wrong, Frenchy.

The Wal-Mart employees voted not to have a union…
Tell you what--go do some research on the history of Wal-mart unionization. Maybe you won't look like such a dumbass next time.

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Gotta love the Simpsons. Except replace "Japanese" with "Chinese".

without labor unions, there are no union fees. Without union fees, the workers can keep more money for themselves
And without unions, salaries are lower, and all that money you save on union fees doesn't really make up the difference.

I'm not saying that unions are a cure all, or that they don't become corrupt at times--history shows that they do--but the working class is a damn sight better off with them than without them.

Well, what if they have to work to support their families, or just want money?People who force someone not to work are just as bad as robber barrens.

A scab makes a living by screwing over many other workers and keeps wages for everyone down.


My grand father was in the teamster’s union in the sixties. Heck, they wanted to give him some sort of position in it. He declined because he knew how involved the mob was in it, and he didn’t want to get into that. He, along with my great-uncle who was also in the union, tell great jokes about the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The union actually discouraged people from working hard, thus making them less valuable to the employers, thus creating a greater need for unions so the union bosses could hold on to their positions.
Eh my friend is a teamster. He dropped of college in his first year and got hooked up with a delivery truck driver job and started out making over $1,000 a week, which is more than any of my friends who actually graduated from college are making now. I have never really worked in a manual labor type unionized job so I have no personal experience to judge as to whether the charicture of the lazy union worker has any basis in reality but I don't think it is a coincidence that as the percentage of workers who are unionized has dropped, wages have stagnated while the number of workers who don't have healthcare has exploded.

You spelled Labor wrong, Frenchy.

It's English UK/Canadian spelling. Spelling it without a 'u' hurts me eyes.

Tell you what--go do some research on the history of Wal-mart unionization. Maybe you won't look like such a dumbass next time.

I was just referring to the most recent occurrence that I happened to come across in the newspaper. I really could care less about Wal-Mart, so I’m not motivated to do research on it. I don’t shop there, its general clientele are a bit too… rough, and the products are of sub-par quality and difficult to actually locate in the store.

You spelled Labor wrong, Frenchy.
Not a good way at all to start your career on NS-General.
You get a big :rolleyes: !

Now:
Unions are a good idea, even from a purely capitalist standpoint.
The difference in power between a single worker and his employer is a distortion on the actual demand and supply of labour in this case.
Unions should serve to address that and make it an equal trading environment. I would want everyone to be in a union, as long a it isn't a skilled worker that cannot easily be replaced, because then the power differences are changed.

Scab Workers? Well, they exercise a legal right. I'm not forming a moral judgement on them, and instead of demonising them, I would suggest Unions should be trying to get them on board for the cause as well.

My master's thesis was on a subject directly related to this. One of my conclusions was that without the ever-present threat of unionization, many employers would have little or no incentive to engage in effective personnel management. The mere threat of having a union represent employees in their dealings with management is often sufficient to motivate employers to reform their personnel and payroll procedures.


That is true. I work in what is for now a newly unionized, though still without a collective agreement (who cares), shop which gives better wages and benefits than any union or non-union shop in the industry. The union keeps harping about safety issues and the likes but nearly all their demands are monetary and not to mention somewhat absurd.

Groups of people should be free to gather for the purpose of collectively selling a product.

Labor unions are groups of people gathered for the purpose of collectively selling a product -- their labor.

Those who hate unions hate the very building-blocks of capitalism itself, and would do well to call themselves corporatists rather than capitalists.

Groups of people should be free to gather for the purpose of collectively selling a product.

Labor unions are groups of people gathered for the purpose of collectively selling a product -- their labor.

Those who hate unions hate the very building-blocks of capitalism itself, and would do well to call themselves corporatists rather than capitalists.

And people are free to create several puppets to skew my poll (noy saying you did lol). :mad:

without labor unions, there are no union fees. Without union fees, the workers can keep more money for themselves

They can keep more, but they'll earn less. A lot less.

Groups of people should be free to gather for the purpose of collectively selling a product.

Labor unions are groups of people gathered for the purpose of collectively selling a product -- their labor.

Those who hate unions hate the very building-blocks of capitalism itself, and would do well to call themselves corporatists rather than capitalists.

A compelling argument. Honestly, I don’t like unions, to much bad blood for them in my family, but, I can’t see how the government could stop people from forming unions without interfering in their lives, something I am against far more than unions annoy me.

Unions ideal are a very useful tool. But in many cases they do become corrupted like many other power tools. But as for scabs, I think the company is the one to blame for that disgusting act. The scabs should know better, but as others have pointed out, their only trying to feed their families like anyone else, even tho Anyone who cross's a union picket line in my opinion tho, needs to give their head a shake, as their defeating one of the few tools unions have against their empoyers for better rights and pay for their union (and unlike how many managers, and higher ups want you to believe, a raise in pay equal to inflation = no raise at all!!)

And without unions, salaries are lower, and all that money you save on union fees doesn't really make up the difference.

They can keep more, but they'll earn less. A lot less.That's how it was a hundred years ago. You're both repeating the usual labor union propaganda that unionization means higher salaries. In the real world, unionization means most of the workers get less and the few elite union bosses get more. There are some few and far between exceptions, but those only get used as examples in the sales pithches union bosses give to potential suckers.

When the American Federation of Teachers tried to con the grad students at Ohio State into unionizing, we hit them with hardball questions about salaries, processes, fees, and benefits that they wouldn't answer. They kept reverting to the short speech about how the grad students at Michigan State and some college in Wisconsin got raises after unionization. Of the dozens of graduate schools that have been unionized, the union bosses could only point to two where the workers ended up better off. You can keep telling yourself that you'll be worse off without unionization, but it's just a comforting lie unless you're a union boss or part of a token success story. If you send me $100 each month, I'm sure your boss will give you a raise of $200 per month. Just look at the handpicked satisfied customers at Michigan State

I work for the community outreach branch of the AFL-CIO (which, oddly enough, is not an organized workplace,) and when some jerk pulls an anecdote out of his ass about how unions are just corrupt mafia kingpins who do nothing for workers, we are told to respond with several statistics and arguments:

-56% of non-union blue collar workers would prefer to be organized
-Wages are higher in industries with high numbers of union members, because of the upward pressure unions put on wages, even nonunion workers have better benefits and higher salaries

and finally, my favorite:

If unions really did nothing, why would management and big business spend so much money and effort trying to shut them down and keep them from expanding?

Unless you're a Marxist, (which few in modern labor are,) you don't believe in a conflict between the economic classes, we just believe that it's only fair for the workers to speak with one voice the way that management does. Can you imagine a workplace where you had to deal seperately with each of your superiors? It would let the workers play them off on each other and would generally create chaos. Labor activists see that it makes just as little sense for the workers to be unorganized as it does for management.

I won't go so far as the pummeling bit, but the rest is pretty accurate. Individuals cannot hope to negotiate one on one with employers, not unless their skills are so specialized that they are in demand, but that's not who most union people are. The people for whom unions are the most beneficial are those who are working at positions which advanced specialization is not the norm.

While I agree with you, I'd just like to point out that in fact because while blue collar unions have been on the decline for a long time, most union people actually belong to the more specialised industries, particularly here in Australia. Some examples (Australian names) are the Law Bar and the Doctor's Board. These bodies have in fact been very successful at limiting and controlling their membership, and protecting the wages and conditions of their workers (in the main part by limiting the supply of doctor/lawyer labour).

Well, what if they have to work to support their families, or just want money?People who force someone not to work are just as bad as robber barrens.

Screw em. Have some dignity for christ's sake. And what are you doing with a family if you cant support them? Theres a lot of jobs out there and scab work is temporary anyway. Go to a temp agency.

The Wal-Mart employees voted not to have a union…

Thats because half of them cant speak english.

That's how it was a hundred years ago.
And how did it change...they formed a Union and fought for better wages and rights! :rolleyes:

I was just referring to the most recent occurrence that I happened to come across in the newspaper. I really could care less about Wal-Mart, so I’m not motivated to do research on it. I don’t shop there, its general clientele are a bit too… rough, and the products are of sub-par quality and difficult to actually locate in the store.

I actually worked there in the original store #0001 Rogers, Arkansas. I was treated well but then they started hiring mexicans who did'nt speak english. It's not my job to do others work because the supervisors cant communicate with some of their employees. For some reason I think if Walmart had a union they would'nt hire non english speaking inferior cheap labor so Walmart can keep their prices down.
I also have a good friend who worked with Verizon(who is unionized) for 7 years in New York. She was making 30 dollars an hour as a tech. She moved to San Francisco and she can't even get living wage. You know why? Because of the cheap ass mexican labor. They bring down wages wherever they go. They often work as scabs and they do inferior work.
I'm a chef at a restaurant here and I dont know how many times I've had it out with my boss because they hired some cheap mexican who could'nt understand what I needed him to do. So then I have to do it for him.

That's how it was a hundred years ago. You're both repeating the usual labor union propaganda that unionization means higher salaries. In the real world, unionization means most of the workers get less and the few elite union bosses get more. There are some few and far between exceptions, but those only get used as examples in the sales pithches union bosses give to potential suckers.

When the American Federation of Teachers tried to con the grad students at Ohio State into unionizing, we hit them with hardball questions about salaries, processes, fees, and benefits that they wouldn't answer. They kept reverting to the short speech about how the grad students at Michigan State and some college in Wisconsin got raises after unionization. Of the dozens of graduate schools that have been unionized, the union bosses could only point to two where the workers ended up better off. You can keep telling yourself that you'll be worse off without unionization, but it's just a comforting lie unless you're a union boss or part of a token success story. If you send me $100 each month, I'm sure your boss will give you a raise of $200 per month. Just look at the handpicked satisfied customers at Michigan State

So explain 33.5 dollars an hour from a starting wage of 7 dollars an hour in seven years. I have also known other people who have similar gains from unions.

Screw em. Have some dignity for christ's sake. And what are you doing with a family if you cant support them? Theres a lot of jobs out there and scab work is temporary anyway. Go to a temp agency.


Uhh 'scab' work is any work done behind a picket line. This includes current workers who either do not support the union or a strike, or are not members and who choose to go to work. This could also include workers whose employment precedes the union's certification as well as those facing a strike for a proposed collective agreement, where none existed previously, by a newly certified union. I am not familiar with the labour laws where you are but scab or not if you take another job during a strike your employer is not required to hire you back and your strike pay benefits would be terminated.

This leaves two alternatives, strike or scab and if not having dignity means honouring credit obligations so that the people who built one's home or car or whatever get what's owed to them or simply putting food on the table at a cost of defying an organization which does not have the full support of the workforce it intends to represent, nor its best interest in mind, it becomes pretty easy to be sleazy.

Union bad. Why? people take advantage.
No union bad. Why? Because corporations take advantage.
Health care run by the government is the awnser.

Health care run by the government is the awnser.

Makes it all the easier to cover up those accidental deaths. ;)

Well people have no power as individuals. What is one worker at a giant super store going to do if he wants a raise or a healthcare plan? Scabs are traitors to their fellow workers which deserve a good pummeling

"Scabs" may well be doing what they think is best for their family and,in many cases, their customers. My father got heckled, actually even threatened (emptily, as it happened, but that's not the point; he didn't know that at the time) as a "scab" when he decided to show up to work once when members of his profession were considering industrial aciton during the 80s. You know what profession he's in? He's a doctor. Yes. Doctors were refusing to show up and work, considering major strikes. Now, fine, I agree with the unions in some cases, I acknowledge that sometimes workers are simply being abused by their employers, but basically, "traitors to their fellow workers" is such shit as I've rarely come across before.

Would you "pummel" a doctor for coming in to work to help people? Especially if it was to help you? I don't think so. So watch it with the generalisations. Scabs are often people who just don't want that kind of trouble in their lives, or who like their jobs, or who recognise that their jobs are necessary. A few years ago, when fire crews striked in this country, nobody shouted at or threatened the skeleton crews who stayed on duty to make sure the fires and the pile-ups were covered, even if there weren't enough people around to get cats out of trees.

Just watch it with the generalistations, okay?

I actually worked there in the original store #0001 Rogers, Arkansas. I was treated well but then they started hiring mexicans who did'nt speak english. It's not my job to do others work because the supervisors cant communicate with some of their employees. For some reason I think if Walmart had a union they would'nt hire non english speaking inferior cheap labor so Walmart can keep their prices down.
I also have a good friend who worked with Verizon(who is unionized) for 7 years in New York. She was making 30 dollars an hour as a tech. She moved to San Francisco and she can't even get living wage. You know why? Because of the cheap ass mexican labor. They bring down wages wherever they go. They often work as scabs and they do inferior work.
I'm a chaf at a restaurant here and I dont know how many times I've had it out with my boss because they hired some cheap mexican who could'nt understand what I needed him to do. So then I have to do it for him.

This is one of the reasons I am for strict boarder control.

Screw em. Have some dignity for christ's sake. And what are you doing with a family if you cant support them? Theres a lot of jobs out there and scab work is temporary anyway. Go to a temp agency.

Okay, that makes no sense. If you belong to the union, and it goes on strike, but you need to the bills, why should you be harassed if you continue working? You were supporting your family before, and you need to continue that.

Makes it all the easier to cover up those accidental deaths. ;)
Deaths, what deaths?

Deaths, what deaths?

The estimated 90,000 accidental hospital deaths annually in the US private health care system.

The estimated 90,000 accidental hospital deaths annually in the US private health care system.
"Deaths, what deaths?" sarcasm anyone?

"Deaths, what deaths?" sarcasm anyone?
HAhaha :)

Uhh 'scab' work is any work done behind a picket line. I think what he was referring to is the amount of money that a scab worker receives to scab. A scab who works while a strike is going on will inevitable receive a much higher wage than that same scab who becomes a regular worker when the strike ends.

With that said, I think that we are much better off with unions than without them, but that unions should significantly change their tactics. But, I guess if they did that, then the IWW would lose its appeal. :)

Unions were necessary, but now many are corrupt and ruled by career unionites who have the sole interest of saving their own position, so thus make very few strides. The union at my workplace, for instance, agreed to abolish overtime pay. Some are good, but there are too few to make a difference anymore.

Unions were necessary, but now many are corrupt and ruled by career unionites who have the sole interest of saving their own position, so thus make very few strides. The union at my workplace, for instance, agreed to abolish overtime pay. Some are good, but there are too few to make a difference anymore.

And this coming from a leftist. Wow.

Unions were necessary, but now many are corrupt and ruled by career unionites who have the sole interest of saving their own position, so thus make very few strides. The union at my workplace, for instance, agreed to abolish overtime pay. Some are good, but there are too few to make a difference anymore.
The solution, then, is to reform the union and root out the corruption, not to get rid of the system, which is what corporations would dearly love eto do.

And this coming from a leftist. Wow.

Heh. It's not really so contradictory. A lot of unions here don't care for the rights of workers anymore. They're just institutions that exploit workers (while giving them a false sense of empowerment) to give political power to those who control them. It's sad.

The solution, then, is to reform the union and root out the corruption, not to get rid of the system, which is what corporations would dearly love eto do.

That's easily said, but reform is impossible. The leaders of these unions (often wealthy themselves, many of whom use unions as a jumping point for a career in the Labor party) hold a firm spot in power. The workers below them trust in them. Often it boils down to a situation where the union has to make a risk in order for any gains to be made...often the workers are willing to do so, but the leadership says "no, no, we've made our point, let's settle for this..." because they fear reprisals and losing their personal power. They are inherently dictatorial. The decent unions are ineffective...even laughable in their efforts at times because they command such little popular support - it's fashionable, even among the working class, to condemn the union movement when it tries to make a stand.

The union movement is dead.

Perhaps the solution is a new union movement, one that is made up of workers rather than career unionites. But it would likely be shot down instantly, unfortunately...

Perhaps the solution is a new union movement, one that is made up of workers rather than career unionites. But it would likely be shot down instantly, unfortunately...The IWW's been around for 100 years. Alas, we are somewhat small, on the grand scheme of things. But usually somewhat effective.

That's easily said, but reform is impossible. The leaders of these unions (often wealthy themselves, many of whom use unions as a jumping point for a career in the Labor party) hold a firm spot in power. The workers below them trust in them. Often it boils down to a situation where the union has to make a risk in order for any gains to be made...often the workers are willing to do so, but the leadership says "no, no, we've made our point, let's settle for this..." because they fear reprisals and losing their personal power. They are inherently dictatorial. The decent unions are ineffective...even laughable in their efforts at times because they command such little popular support - it's fashionable, even among the working class, to condemn the union movement when it tries to make a stand.

The union movement is dead.

Perhaps the solution is a new union movement, one that is made up of workers rather than career unionites. But it would likely be shot down instantly, unfortunately...I never said reform would be easy, just that it would be worth it. Right now in the US, there's the potential for a major split in the unions--some major unions in the AFL-CIO are threatening to split unless major reforms take place, and not surprisingly, they're the unions that are the newest and most active. I'm keeping an eye on it to see how the new and old guards work this out.

Exellent Poll New Fuglies.

There should be one international Union. All Union members should be armed. Any refusing to join the union should be educated, if they still refuse they should be shot. Employers should be educated, if they do not join the rank and file they should be shot. Scabs should be educated if they continue being class traitors, they should be shot.

I think that unions need to be revitalised and reorganised. They've become bureaucratic and corrupt. Too many unions funnel funds to other countries (unions were illegal in Canada at one point, and a loophole allowed US unions to enter the country while Canadian unions were prohibited from forming), and have their main leadership in other regions. This often leads to decisions that benefit the leadership's home region over the rest of the membership. Unions have become stagnant.

It's time to form NEW unions and force the old bastards out, or to revitalise the unions that exist. I'm for the former option. Too much is ingrained in the current unions (I'm talking the big, old ones...especially the construction trades unions) to clean them out. And the membership has to get off their asses and get involved in the decision making. I'd say that's the biggest problem with unions right now. The only ones who are really active are the ones who are the problem.

The IWW's been around for 100 years. Alas, we are somewhat small, on the grand scheme of things. But usually somewhat effective.

Oh, theres probably still a few "wobblies" floating around. But they're prohibited from getting representation in Australian workplaces, I believe...something to do with their anti-war actions during WW1. Something to that effect, anyway, not sure on the specifics.

I never said reform would be easy, just that it would be worth it. Right now in the US, there's the potential for a major split in the unions--some major unions in the AFL-CIO are threatening to split unless major reforms take place, and not surprisingly, they're the unions that are the newest and most active. I'm keeping an eye on it to see how the new and old guards work this out.

I still think it's impossible to really reform them. We need a new movement. I hope things look up in the US, because over here, the situation is really quite bad.


It's time to form NEW unions and force the old bastards out, or to revitalise the unions that exist. I'm for the former option. Too much is ingrained in the current unions (I'm talking the big, old ones...especially the construction trades unions) to clean them out. And the membership has to get off their asses and get involved in the decision making. I'd say that's the biggest problem with unions right now. The only ones who are really active are the ones who are the problem.

^ Precisely.

Unions are very good and, in my opinion, necessary. However, American unions have gone downhill since the murder of Jimmy Hoffa and the fall of the steel industry.

Here's a little union story from "ma belle province"

Few years ago, Videotron (a major cable company who built himself by keeping a monopole in Quebec for many years) had a major disagreement with is union. The strike/lock-out lasted for more than a year.

Because Videotron is in the multimedia industry they didn't have to obey the anti-scab law the province had. The worker on strike where represented by the FTQ (one of the two major local union, they are affiliated with the teamsters I think).

Videotron never had problem recruiting scab with higher formation and professional background than there actual worker for half the price because the economic conjunction is not what it was where most of there worker got hired in the 70's. And many people where happy to accept a shitty scab job instead of staying home with no job.

But...

Maybe 60% of these scab (from the 1500 employees who where in strike), the one's working in the calling center where ALSO member of the FTQ, they where paying contribution!!!

I dislike unions.

I also dislike unfair wages everyone should just get along and be paid a fair wage for what they do but not necassarily wat they are worth.

Unions are anachronisms that only hurt US manufacturing and drive up prices for consumers. They refuse to compromise and cost people their jobs when companies go under because of it. Let them die out and let the market regulate their wages. It works for nonunion employees.

It's either offshore jobs or get rid of unions.

Unions are anachronisms that only hurt US manufacturing and drive up prices for consumers. They refuse to compromise and cost people their jobs when companies go under because of it. Let them die out and let the market regulate their wages. It works for nonunion employees.

It's either offshore jobs or get rid of unions.

Ah, so we should just let companies do away with fair wages and benefits? Whatever makes more money, I see.

Ah, so we should just let companies do away with fair wages and benefits? Whatever makes more money, I see.

What gave unions the right to decide what "fair" wages and benefits are? All they do is pass the buck.

Ah, so we should just let companies do away with fair wages and benefits? Whatever makes more money, I see.

The vast majority of people recieve a "fair wage" and the number who strike compared to the number of contented workers is very small. Companies pay you a salary relative to the return they get on their investment in you. If you are a valuable employee, you deserve more money.

Human work is nothing more than a productivity investment. The money put in must produce more than it costs, or you lose on the investment. A company's most important role is to make a profit, or otherwise it doesn't function.

Exellent Poll New Fuglies.

There should be one international Union. All Union members should be armed. Any refusing to join the union should be educated, if they still refuse they should be shot. Employers should be educated, if they do not join the rank and file they should be shot. Scabs should be educated if they continue being class traitors, they should be shot.


Glad you think so but the case I am referring to is a newly unionised shop. The certification vote won by only 1.4% and the strike vote although netting 70% approval in actual fact represents only 54.3% of the workforce while the remaining 45.7% voted no or didn't vote. Even among those workers who are participating in the strike, roughly half, most say they won't go out longer than one or two weeks. This particular union abandoned its workers here twnety years ago by having a failed strike and then walked away, only after hundreds of people lost their homes and such. This new attempt is showing all the symptoms of the last one and those people who decide to keep working are aware of this fact and value what they worked more than the respect of a union that neither operates effectively nor rationally and has exploited such things as racial tensions to push its self through.

So explain 33.5 dollars an hour from a starting wage of 7 dollars an hour in seven years. I have also known other people who have similar gains from unions.No, it went from $8.00 per hour to $7.84 per hour because of the 2% union fee. Then the union used the money it had legally stolen from me to pay for the re-election campaign of Gray Davis, the very person who had made it legal for the union to steal the money from me and give it to Gray Davis. No collective bargaining for higher wages, no grievance procedure, no extra benefits. Just political campaigns and some administrative work. That was it. Oh, and we didn't vote to have a union. Now I'm in a right to work state where it's illegal for labor unions to steal, but they are using money stolen from workers in other states to try to make it legal here. I'll gladly cross a picket line if it will help to destroy a mandatory fee labor union

"Scabs" may well be doing what they think is best for their family and,in many cases, their customers. My father got heckled, actually even threatened...years ago...i ve seen on Canadian TV...4 Men(probably Postal Workers) beating the crap of a young man working as a scab mailman...during a CanadaPost Strike...he was sent to the Hospital.

I do support the right to form a Union...But this criminal intimidation crap deserves mandatory Jail.
People should not be forced to support the Union.

Uhh 'scab' work is any work done behind a picket line. This includes current workers who either do not support the union or a strike, or are not members and who choose to go to work. This could also include workers whose employment precedes the union's certification as well as those facing a strike for a proposed collective agreement, where none existed previously, by a newly certified union.

Ok, sorry, I was referring to outside workers who come in to fill places of established employees. During the Hotel workers strike here in S.F. I needed a job but I could not bring myself to undermine their position by taking any of the jobs I could have had. I can understand staying out of a strike if your financial situation does not allow it. But dont some if not most unions have resources to compensate workers on strike for lost income?

Mixed views on that one.

I tend to honor picket lines if I see what they are after sounds reasonable.

I have worked in companies and delt with executives that would dispell the belief that unions are nolonger necessary. Total scum.

However, unions are not innocent either. Father-in-law was an electrician. Had good things to say about the union. Helped him out during bad times. However, he also says they have changed a great deal since he was in.....

No, it went from $8.00 per hour to $7.84 per hour because of the 2% union fee. Then the union used the money it had legally stolen from me to pay for the re-election campaign of Gray Davis, the very person who had made it legal for the union to steal the money from me and give it to Gray Davis. No collective bargaining for higher wages, no grievance procedure, no extra benefits. Just political campaigns and some administrative work. That was it. Oh, and we didn't vote to have a union. Now I'm in a right to work state where it's illegal for labor unions to steal, but they are using money stolen from workers in other states to try to make it legal here. I'll gladly cross a picket line if it will help to destroy a mandatory fee labor union

I was'nt referring to the retarded system California has in place I was referring to a New York job with Verizon. Who has'nt been hurt one bit by compensating their employees well mind you. Oh, and how about $5 doctor or dentist visits?
And yes, I know that all union jobs are not the same, but this is just the most detailed positive account of a union worker that I have.

Ok, sorry, I was referring to outside workers who come in to fill places of established employees. During the Hotel workers strike here in S.F. I needed a job but I could not bring myself to undermine their position by taking any of the jobs I could have had. I can understand staying out of a strike if your financial situation does not allow it. But dont some if not most unions have resources to compensate workers on strike for lost income?


Nope I am speaking of established employees with quite a lot invested. In this particular case it appears it will be a long ugly strike. The workforce is divided and many will NOT honour the picket line. I should add this same union abandoned its members during another long strike here twenty years ago. The union is offering strike pay of course however it's less than half of what the average worker makes in net pay.

Given the sheer size of the workforce, it's debateable how long the union would commit itself to such a costly strike. Past performance indicates there is a limit and the workforce involved back then is a mere fraction of what it is today. Further, the employer can seek an injunction to limit the size of the picket line. Given that it would be adjacent to a transcontinental highway it's obvious that the interests of public safety woud be at risk. Technically a union only owes strike pay for picket duty so either they'd be hired by the union to do community service if at all, legally and possibly at minimum wage, or be S.O.L. and in both cases probably bankrupted.

Oh, theres probably still a few "wobblies" floating around. But they're prohibited from getting representation in Australian workplaces, I believe...something to do with their anti-war actions during WW1. Something to that effect, anyway, not sure on the specifics.Yeah, there are about 1200 of us, but we're growing. I'm not sure about the rest of that, it sounds quite strange (but I wouldn't be surprised). I'll have to ask the Australian group about that.