NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?

No, but I've been affected by strike action on several occasions. Once during high school, once in college (yes, I pay to go to school and the staff strikes). Then there was the public transit strike, plus all the CRA strikes, which affected my family directly because my parents, my step-father worked for CRA.

I've been affected by two strikes. One was the 2001 petrol worker strike in the UK. The other was the 2007-2008 writer's strike in the US (which I supported).

Incidentally, I'm going to guess what union you're in: Screen Actor's Guild?

I've been affected by two strikes. One was the 2001 petrol worker strike in the UK. The other was the 2007-2008 writer's strike in the US (which I supported).

Incidentally, I'm going to guess what union you're in: Screen Actor's Guild?

Check the siggy. ;)

Ah. I see. It's just that I heard that the SAG is considering a strike.

No, but that's because my union doesn't do shit for us except take our money.

My uncle was on strike before. Did tend to put him in a rough situation because no job=no pay.Unemployment does not pay out for people on strike and finding a temp job in the meantime is not easy.

Ah. I see. It's just that I heard that the SAG is considering a strike.

My annual acting side job isn't union. :P

No, but that's because my union doesn't do shit for us except take our money.

My uncle was on strike before. Did tend to put him in a rough situation because no job=no pay.Unemployment does not pay out for people on strike and finding a temp job in the meantime is not easy.

Sounds like you're in a bad spot.

The full time Japanese employee's closed shop union at my company is a corrupt shop like that. Fortunately I'm not covered by the closed shop agreement, and my union does what it's supposed to. :) (Last big victory was a negotiation that resulted in health and pension beifits in exchange for an extra 30 minutes work a week.)

I'm French. What do you think? :D

i don't think there is a union for my line of work. besides, i work at a small company and if i went on strike all that would happen is work i need to do wouldn't get done, and i'd have more to do when i got back. if a couple of others joined me it would be most likely just as fruitless.

but then we can talk to our bosses directly and they're nice, reasonable people

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?
Are y'all striking over the abysmal way English teachers in Japan have been treated recently?

Or do ya just need a couple days off to enjoy the last part of Spring.

Ah. I see. It's just that I heard that the SAG is considering a strike.

Indeed they are.

I haven't been on strike but when I was young my mother was on strike for a while, something about the retirement account or something I don't know because I was like 7, but I remember thinking that they were just going to fire everyone and start over.

Indeed they are.

I haven't been on strike but when I was young my mother was on strike for a while, something about the retirement account or something I don't know because I was like 7, but I remember thinking that they were just going to fire everyone and start over.
I guess if she would have been an air traffic controller, they really did!

My parents weren't unionized - they worked in IT.

I wonder what would happen if the programmers unionized.

I struck last year. I think that it was probably just about worth it but I wonder if it all could have been averted by better negotiating.

Never been in a strike, but I have been in a few riots! including that one Algerian riot in Paris a few years back :D

Axle Strikers in Michigan had to settle for a LOSS of almost 30% of their hourly wages. Workers who were getting $28 an hour are now going to make only $18 an hour.

How much the offer was before the 3 month strike I don't know, but GM claims that the strike stopped the production of nearly a quarter of a million vehicles (trucks and SUVs that would be sitting in the dealer lots unsold now with high gas prices being what they are...)

Strikes don't always work... in fact, almost never do anymore.

Unions were good for two things only: getting safe(r) working conditions and non-slave wages. They've pretty much failed at everything else.

There should not be unions for any non-manual labor careers, so these teachers and casino worker's unions? Yeah, they're a joke.

I'm French. What do you think? :D

Heh. :)

i don't think there is a union for my line of work. besides, i work at a small company and if i went on strike all that would happen is work i need to do wouldn't get done, and i'd have more to do when i got back. if a couple of others joined me it would be most likely just as fruitless.

but then we can talk to our bosses directly and they're nice, reasonable people

As I've said before, if the bosses treated people right, there'd be no need for unions.

Are y'all striking over the abysmal way English teachers in Japan have been treated recently?

Or do ya just need a couple days off to enjoy the last part of Spring.

The former, more or less. The company I work for isn't the evil corp. called NOVA, that's much to blaim for for the bad news in this sector. I won't go into detail (at least not now), but sufice it to say we have legit greivances including a nice pile of illegal and unfair labor practices. (Sorry, but no, a group of people from the personel dept. are not allowed to isolate a new member in a locked office for an interrogation on why that person joined the union. :upyours:)

but sufice it to say we have legit greivances including a nice pile of illegal and unfair labor practices.
If there were illegal practices going on, there is no need to strike, but simply contact law enforcement. A quick call to the local prosecutor's office should clear things up right quick.

If you are not contacting law enforcement, then you are just illegitimately throwing around the term 'illegal' just because you 'feel' like it is 'unfair'.

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?

I'm on strike right now! I will not rest until I bow to the pressure and raise my wages by thirty percent!

But seriously, no, seeing as how I've only been employed once, and only for a few months at that, and my next employer is not exactly conducive to a strike...

I've gone on strike once for better pay and working conditions. Also, there have been 3 times in my life where one of the other unions where i was working went on strike and the union i was with stated they wouldd support us if we didn't cross the picket lines (if there were any, which of course, there were.)

The former, more or less. The company I work for isn't the evil corp. called NOVA, that's much to blaim for for the bad news in this sector. I won't go into detail (at least not now), but sufice it to say we have legit greivances including a nice pile of illegal and unfair labor practices. (Sorry, but no, a group of people from the personel dept. are not allowed to isolate a new member in a locked office for an interrogation on why that person joined the union. :upyours:)

What are worker's rights like in Japan anyway? The ignorant American in me wants to immediately presume they're worse than American rights, but somehow I suspect that's not quite the case.

If there were illegal practices going on, there is no need to strike, but simply contact law enforcement. A quick call to the local prosecutor's office should clear things up right quick.

If you are not contacting law enforcement, then you are just illegitimately throwing around the term 'illegal' just because you 'feel' like it is 'unfair'.

LOL

Wait until you enter the real working world kid.

LOL

Wait until you enter the real working world kid.

!Zing. You are of course correct as big business' are usually untouchable unless you can garner sufficient evidence to make a case yourself or an accident happens 9which ever is the earliest.)

Of course the Union can get that evidence for you and have more clout than your one voice.

(best thing about being in a union that, you are never alone.)

What are worker's rights like in Japan anyway? The ignorant American in me wants to immediately presume they're worse than American rights, but somehow I suspect that's not quite the case.

This is a strike because the men over there want to dress all the women working in school girl outfits, right?

I've gone on strike once for better pay and working conditions. Also, there have been 3 times in my life where one of the other unions where i was working went on strike and the union i was with stated they wouldd support us if we didn't cross the picket lines (if there were any, which of course, there were.)

Excellent. :)

What are worker's rights like in Japan anyway? The ignorant American in me wants to immediately presume they're worse than American rights, but somehow I suspect that's not quite the case.

Overall, about on par. In my sector, well below par.

!Zing. You are of course correct as big business' are usually untouchable unless you can garner sufficient evidence to make a case yourself or an accident happens 9which ever is the earliest.)

Of course the Union can get that evidence for you and have more clout than your one voice.

(best thing about being in a union that, you are never alone.)

Indeed. :) (And INDEEED! :D)

To put all this in perspective, we got a settlement over unpayed forced overtime (a matter where administrative time for required paperwork wasn't paid). If I'd gone to the company or to the labor standards board all on my lonesome, I'd have been ignored. But when the union lawyers did so, we won. Note that if I'd hired a lawyer, it would have cost me more than I got in back pay.

This is a strike because the men over there want to dress all the women working in school girl outfits, right?

LOL Fortunately, no. (17 years in country, and I still don't get the school uniform fetish. :rolleyes:)

Overall, about on par. In my sector, well below par.
Well, good luck with the strike, mate.

LOL Fortunately, no. (17 years in country, and I still don't get the school uniform fetish. :rolleyes:)

...you don't? I do...

Well, good luck with the strike, mate.

Thanks. :D

Not certain we'll be on strike. The Tokyo union's strike adds to the leverage we can bring next week in collective bargaining, and other factors may help head it off.
Note, I'd rather avoid it, if possible. And if it does happen, it's more likely to be a rolling strike.

...you don't? I do...

As they saying here goes "ju nin to iro". (Closest Eng. would be "horses for courses".)

No. The union I'm in at work is fairly middle of the road, so while it's certainly better than not having a union, there's little likelihood of a strike. Perhaps I'll be able to help out strikers in my IWW work.

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?

I used to belong to a union, possibly the single most ineffective union in the history of mankind.

One year they decided we needed to go on strike, even though it specifically stated in the union contract that, because we were public employees we could not go on strike. About 10% of the employees actually went out on strike. Nothing was accomplished, except some low income people didn't get paid.

When the supermarket employees went on strike later that year, we were told that our union contract said that we couldn't honor the picket line!

If there is any intelligence in that union, they'll affiliate with the Teamsters and stop pretending they're doing anything useful.

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?

I read the title as "deep strike"! I thought wow, those unions have really beefed up the technology they use to get their message across!:p (pictures thousands of angry workers taking a drop pod assault on their government house, in a bitter gun battle)

no i've never been on strike, but the idea appeals to me. I don't know how effective these things are, do they even work nowadays?
I know they used to work, i suppose it depends on the circumstances you have, and how many people are also striking.

There should not be unions for any non-manual labor careers.

Why not?

Unions were good for two things only: getting safe(r) working conditions and non-slave wages. They've pretty much failed at everything else.

There should not be unions for any non-manual labor careers, so these teachers and casino worker's unions? Yeah, they're a joke.

The teachers union is a very powerful joke then. They made it so a teacher couldn't be fired on the spot for having sexual relations with a student, and instead get paid leave until resorted.

don't ask me for a source though, I saw it on some show a while back. Which could also mean I misheard it but...regardless they are powerful.

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

What's the general attitude in Japan toward striking and unions and so on?

Actually, right-wing governments all the time refuse to enforce labor laws and workplace standards and conditions, Reagan and Thatcher broke the law many times during their respective terms by downright refusing to enforce any restriction on business and bosses to drive down wages and conditions.

Class struggle is the only way!

Also, look to South Korea, the worker struggle there is downright brutal, I saw this youtube video of striking workers being beaten by riot police until they started using flamethrowers (yes flamethrowers) to drive off the pigs.

Click Stand;13716977']The teachers union is a very powerful joke then. They made it so a teacher couldn't be fired on the spot for having sexual relations with a student, and instead get paid leave until resorted.

don't ask me for a source though, I saw it on some show a while back. Which could also mean I misheard it but...regardless they are powerful.
I think you got that wrong. It is that a teacher couldn't be fired on the spot for being accused of having sexual relations with a student, and get paid leave until the accusation is finalised. I think that is a good thing.

If you don't think a high school student who was rebuffed by a teacher he/she had a crush, on wouldn't resort to falsely accusing that teacher, then you are very niave. I'm glad that the teacher is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, i just think the presumption of innocence is important.

Why not?

Why should there be? As stated, the idea behind unions originally was to provide collective bargaining to a downtrodden group of workers, and improve safety conditions in the workplace.

The idea that teachers (almost all of whom have advanced degrees!) are too stupid to get a decent wage is a joke. The idea that they could easily loose their lives or appendages is likewise a joke.

Rinse, lather and repeat with all non-manual labor jobs. A worker could fall off a building, etc. What's going to happen to a casino worker? RSI from spinning the roulette wheel?

Why should there be? As stated, the idea behind unions originally was to provide collective bargaining to a downtrodden group of workers, and improve safety conditions in the workplace.

The idea that teachers (almost all of whom have advanced degrees!) are too stupid to get a decent wage is a joke. The idea that they could easily loose their lives or appendages is likewise a joke.

Rinse, lather and repeat with all non-manual labor jobs. A worker could fall off a building, etc. What's going to happen to a casino worker? RSI from spinning the roulette wheel?Why would you assume that if the employee isn't getting a decent wage, it's because they must be stupid?

Why should there be? As stated, the idea behind unions originally was to provide collective bargaining to a downtrodden group of workers, and improve safety conditions in the workplace.

The idea that teachers (almost all of whom have advanced degrees!) are too stupid to get a decent wage is a joke. The idea that they could easily loose their lives or appendages is likewise a joke.

I think that your presumption that unions can (should?) only be used to improve conditions for those in the worst situations is an odd one. In the WGA strike, guys with Harvard MBAs were acting together to improve their situation.

I've never been unionized, and probably never will. I won't be a member of an organization that uses part of the membership fees to support a political party that I do not support myself, and that's what would happen if I join a union in Sweden.

If I wanted to work during a strike I'd cross picket lines, but this is not something I've had to do so far. It came pretty close a few years back, but my workplace ended up not being affected. Good thing that, as the old ladies working there were talking about how if the strike ended up happening they would beat up anyone trying to get in...

why would u wanna go on strike.completely stupid.

I've never been unionized, and probably never will. I won't be a member of an organization that uses part of the membership fees to support a political party that I do not support myself, and that's what would happen if I join a union in Sweden.

If I wanted to work during a strike I'd cross picket lines, but this is not something I've had to do so far. It came pretty close a few years back, but my workplace ended up not being affected. Good thing that, as the old ladies working there were talking about how if the strike ended up happening they would beat up anyone trying to get in...

You're fortunate, you've never had to work in closed shop - I have. I either paid union dues and joined or had a "fair share" taken out of my check and given to the union. In the first case, I had a say in what the union did. In the second case, they still got my money and I had no say.

why would u wanna go on strike.completely stupid.

You might have too much money and wanna take a break from getting paid.

You're fortunate, you've never had to work in closed shop - I have. I either paid union dues and joined or had a "fair share" taken out of my check and given to the union. In the first case, I had a say in what the union did. In the second case, they still got my money and I had no say.

In which sector was this?

I was kinda on strike once. A few years back the teachers were trying to get paid for supervising us during lunch breaks(since at the time they were technically doing it for free). So they went on a work to rule(forcing the Dept. of Education to hire supervisors for us) and had occasional strike days. Some of the older students decided to go on strike to protest the whole thing, and to get the day off class I(and many others) joined them.

I think that your presumption that unions can (should?) only be used to improve conditions for those in the worst situations is an odd one. In the WGA strike, guys with Harvard MBAs were acting together to improve their situation.

Indeed. Markreich seems to misunderstand the purpose of a union...

why would u wanna go on strike.completely stupid.

:rolleyes: My what an intelligent comment.

You're fortunate, you've never had to work in closed shop - I have. I either paid union dues and joined or had a "fair share" taken out of my check and given to the union. In the first case, I had a say in what the union did. In the second case, they still got my money and I had no say.

The union that represents the full time, lifetime Japanese employees (again, a complicated labor situation - there are at least 4 unions representing various employees at this company) has a closed shop. They are a nasty little corrupt organization. At least I know the head of my union personally - nice guy to go out for drinks with - and neither he nor any other leardership types could be considered corrupt.

I was kinda on strike once. A few years back the teachers were trying to get paid for supervising us during lunch breaks(since at the time they were technically doing it for free). So they went on a work to rule(forcing the Dept. of Education to hire supervisors for us) and had occasional strike days. Some of the older students decided to go on strike to protest the whole thing, and to get the day off class I(and many others) joined them.

Good on you.

Good on you.

Got me my day off. I'm pleased with what I achieved.

Got me my day off. I'm pleased with what I achieved.

I remember that too. Fun times, especially with the teachers. They always gripe.

Got me my day off. I'm pleased with what I achieved.

And hopefully help the teachers out. :)

*Looking at the front page of General*
:confused:

Why would you assume that if the employee isn't getting a decent wage, it's because they must be stupid?

Because anyone that isn't stupid would logically find a better job.

I think that your presumption that unions can (should?) only be used to improve conditions for those in the worst situations is an odd one. In the WGA strike, guys with Harvard MBAs were acting together to improve their situation.

...and achieved mostly nothing for it except to make us deal without new scripts for TV shows, so TV got even worse than usual.

Sorry, but in my eyes that only FURTHER PROVES that non-manual labor unions should not exist. :)

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?

I like the scab option. Can we not just say, I don't care for your politics?
F*ck W*t option to my mind is anyone that thinks unions are good for workers.
I'm strong enough to do it on my own, I don't need a union guy saying what I can say myself. If I were weak, a union might work fo me:D

...and achieved mostly nothing for it except to make us deal without new scripts for TV shows, so TV got even worse than usual.

Sorry, but in my eyes that only PROVES that non-manual labor unions should not exist.

It definitely did achieve some things. Whilst there's differing opinion on how much was achieved, there is no group saying that writers would be better off without the WGA. There's no school of thought that says striking or the threat of striking isn't really, really important.

And, like I said, some of these guys are Harvard MBAs. Hell, some have been professional negotiators.

If I wanted to work during a strike I'd cross picket lines, but this is not something I've had to do so far. It came pretty close a few years back, but my workplace ended up not being affected. Good thing that, as the old ladies working there were talking about how if the strike ended up happening they would beat up anyone trying to get in...Lol...that's funny.

Because anyone that isn't stupid would logically find a better job.Why would you assume that there is a better job to get?

Because anyone that isn't stupid would logically find a better job.

What's the salary for an enlisted man again....?

Hmmm.

F*ck W*t option to my mind is anyone that thinks unions are good for workers.

That would explain why companies like unions so much.

What's the salary for an enlisted man again....?

Hmmm.

A lot higher than you obviously think, *and* they're not unionized. :D

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/bp/paytables/2008_Basic_Pay_Table%20_capped.html

For example, an E-3 (read: Corporal) with 3 years of experience is paid $1509.90/month.
If they're serving in a combat zone, they cannot be taxed. They also may recieve bonuses.
Sure, it's under $10/hour, but then again their food & board is paid for. All in all, it's not as bad IMO as being a McDonalds shift manager.

Why would you assume that there is a better job to get?

Becaue there always is. You're probably living proof: you've acquired things as you move along, save (hopefully), and advance yourself. Just like most everyone does in free and open societies.

...which is where Unions are legal. You won't find Unions worth spit in North Korea, for example. Which is ironic, since the NK (and hell, Chinese!) people NEED unions as their quality of life is so poor and they have nowhere to turn.

In a 1st world country? There is most certainly a better job for everyone. And that's without collective bargaining.

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?


My student union was on strike.

Me and some buddies, many of us not being union members, organized a variety of actions against the strike, strikebreaking included.

Yes.

Allanea - Scab and Proud.

In a 1st world country? There is most certainly a better job for everyone. And that's without collective bargaining.

Then how the hell does Wal-mart, Mcdonalds, etc, get employees? You've just shown you have no insight in to the real situation of the lower class. Yes, a Harvard MBA can get a better job. Many people can't.

Becaue there always is.No, there isn't always.

You're probably living proof: you've acquired things as you move along, save (hopefully), and advance yourself. Certainly, mostly as the result of working in a unionized job.

...which is where Unions are legal. You won't find Unions worth spit in North Korea, for example. Which is ironic, since the NK (and hell, Chinese!) people NEED unions as their quality of life is so poor and they have nowhere to turn.People in all countries need unions to improve (and maintain) their quality of life.

In a 1st world country? There is most certainly a better job for everyone. And that's without collective bargaining.Not hardly.

...and achieved mostly nothing for it except to make us deal without new scripts for TV shows, so TV got even worse than usual.

Sorry, but in my eyes that only FURTHER PROVES that non-manual labor unions should not exist. :)
The best thing that happened was that I finally got so fed up with TV that I renewed my interest in ham radio and now I don't watch TV. At all.

But more to the point... Some friends of mine worked for Boeing in Seattle. The engineers thought that they needed a union. So they established one. Now they get their negotitated two or three percent pay raise every year, while the non-union engineers get merit raises, bonuses, and stock options. I've always thought that one should sink or swim on one's own merits and all unions do is encourage mediocrity. So far as I can tell, the latter is definitely true.

A lot higher than you obviously think, *and* they're not unionized. :D

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/bp/paytables/2008_Basic_Pay_Table%20_capped.html

For example, an E-3 (read: Corporal)

Wrong, an E-3 is not a Corporal, that would be E-4, E-3 is:
Navy: Seaman 1st class
Marines: Lance Corporal
Army: Airman 1st class
Army: Private 1st class

Becaue there always is. You're probably living proof: you've acquired things as you move along, save (hopefully), and advance yourself. Just like most everyone does in free and open societies.

...which is where Unions are legal. You won't find Unions worth spit in North Korea, for example. Which is ironic, since the NK (and hell, Chinese!) people NEED unions as their quality of life is so poor and they have nowhere to turn.

In a 1st world country? There is most certainly a better job for everyone. And that's without collective bargaining.

I hate to keep dragging this back to the WGA strike but it's the one I'm most comfortable with.

The WGA guarantees a minimum amount that you can pay a writer for a screenplay. Why? Because otherwise members would get paid less than that.

The WGA guarantees a certain billing and credit for a writer. Why? Because otherwise members would get less than that.

And why does the AMPTP - who have an effective monopoly over Hollywood - agree to this? Because if the writers strike they can cost them billions.

I hate to keep dragging this back to the WGA strike but it's the one I'm most comfortable with.

The WGA guarantees a minimum amount that you can pay a writer for a screenplay. Why? Because otherwise members would get paid less than that.

The WGA guarantees a certain billing and credit for a writer. Why? Because otherwise members would get less than that.

And why does the AMPTP - who have an effective monopoly over Hollywood - agree to this? Because if the writers strike they can cost them billions.
Why should bad writers have their salaries propped up by collective bargaining? Why not let the industry pay them what they are worth? I have no doubt that good writers, scarce as they are, would be in high demand and generously compensated. Why should they be held back by union scale?

I guess the answer is because they are sheep and willing to go along to get along. Clearly, their product says they are content with mediocrity.

Then how the hell does Wal-mart, Mcdonalds, etc, get employees? You've just shown you have no insight in to the real situation of the lower class. Yes, a Harvard MBA can get a better job. Many people can't.

Very easily. Everyone has to start SOMEWHERE. I myself had jobs delivering pizza, clerking in a luggage shop, and driving a forklift before going off to college. And I certainly didn't grow up rich! ANYBODY can get a better job. It's belief that people are in and of themselves powerless to improve their own state as to why so many people DON'T and stagnate.

And, btw, MOST people do not stay in the lower class. :) Over decades of work, most everyone saves something. Most of them quite a bit, all things considered.

No, there isn't always.

Certainly, mostly as the result of working in a unionized job.

People in all countries need unions to improve (and maintain) their quality of life.

Not hardly.

"I'm right, you're wrong". That's all you've got after twice asking "why"? :rolleyes:

Wrong, an E-3 is not a Corporal, that would be E-4, E-3 is:
Navy: Seaman 1st class
Marines: Lance Corporal
Army: Airman 1st class
Army: Private 1st class

Thanks.

I hate to keep dragging this back to the WGA strike but it's the one I'm most comfortable with.

The WGA guarantees a minimum amount that you can pay a writer for a screenplay. Why? Because otherwise members would get paid less than that.

The WGA guarantees a certain billing and credit for a writer. Why? Because otherwise members would get less than that.

And why does the AMPTP - who have an effective monopoly over Hollywood - agree to this? Because if the writers strike they can cost them billions.

One union fighting another union. Ban them both and let things run the way they should. That way we could stop getting such crummy movies.

Thanks.

De nada

"I'm right, you're wrong". That's all you've got after twice asking "why"? :rolleyes:You don't think it's a coincidence that as real wages are falling, so are union participation rates, do you?

You don't think it's a coincidence that as real wages are falling, so are union participation rates, do you?
Considering that the decline in union membership has been going on as long as I can remember, yes, it does sound like a coincidence.

The BLS says that 30% of employed people belonged to unions in 1945. In 1979, the total was 24.1 % of employed people. The last entry on an ugly table is for 1998 and that's 13.9% of employed people are members of unions. The decline has been an ongoing problem for a number of years.

And, btw, MOST people do not stay in the lower class. :) Over decades of work, most everyone saves something. Most of them quite a bit, all things considered.
Here's a quote from a UN study.
In contrast, the bottom half of the world
adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.

So what is it? Half the world don't work, or after you take out most people, you are still left with half the world?

The old saying "born rich, die rich. Born poor, die poor" is still true for most of the world.

You don't think it's a coincidence that as real wages are falling, so are union participation rates, do you?

I think it may be a coincidence, in Australia union participation rates are falling yet real wages are rising.

That little interesting bit on the Armed forces pay scale, nice to have a look, as my old Almanac which has everything you need to know in it has the 96 pay scales in their, how things have changed one obvious ones apart from the increase in pay is that grades O9-O10 have payment for those with less than 18 years service as $0.00 where as 12 years ago they would have been paid (not that anyone would become a Lt. general or General after only 4 years experience)

One question with these scales they say monthly, E1>4 months only gets $1347 you cannot say that is a decent wage, and there are other grades where this rings true as well.

One question with these scales they say monthly, E1>4 months only gets $1347 you cannot say that is a decent wage, and there are other grades where this rings true as well.

When you consider the fact that they have no food, housing, or utilities expenses it isn't that bad.

One question with these scales they say monthly, E1>4 months only gets $1347 you cannot say that is a decent wage, and there are other grades where this rings true as well.
Huh? This is typically a single 18 year old working at his first real job. I'd say that's a pretty damn good monthly rate for someone with no other real skills besides good health.

Any E1, E2, or even E3 that gets married and has kids has rocks in his head and should have never passed the physical. They DON'T make enough to support a family.

Huh? This is typically a single 18 year old working at his first real job. I'd say that's a pretty damn good monthly rate for someone with no other real skills besides good health.


So linking in with what Markreich said earlier on Because anyone that isn't stupid would logically find a better job.

a typical 18 year old who has enlisted is simply "too stupid" to get the skills to "find a better job".

Considering that the decline in union membership has been going on as long as I can remember, yes, it does sound like a coincidence.

The BLS says that 30% of employed people belonged to unions in 1945. In 1979, the total was 24.1 % of employed people. The last entry on an ugly table is for 1998 and that's 13.9% of employed people are members of unions. The decline has been an ongoing problem for a number of years.The decline in real wages has also been an ongoing problem for a number of years.

You don't think it's a coincidence that as real wages are falling, so are union participation rates, do you?

Union participation has been falling since the early 50s... and since real wages have gone up multiple times since the 50s... no, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a FACT that being in a union keeps your wages DOWN over the long run!! :D

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-01-18-historicalunionmembership.gif

Here's a quote from a UN study.
In contrast, the bottom half of the world
adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.

So what is it? Half the world don't work, or after you take out most people, you are still left with half the world?

The old saying "born rich, die rich. Born poor, die poor" is still true for most of the world.

This is a planetary study right? One that includes those swaths of the planet that are not free? Places like Viet Nam or Cuba? (Hey! Those places HAVE unions! Why aren't those people rich??) Or Zimbabwe or (nee) Burma?
(Did you know that Viet Nam has more people than Germany?)

Yes, it's true because of their governments. But if you're born poor in the 1st or even a good chunk of the 2nd world, odds are even or better that you'll finish ahead of where you started.

So linking in with what Markreich said earlier on

a typical 18 year old who has enlisted is simply "too stupid" to get the skills to "find a better job".
What a crock... Unskilled and inexperienced are not the same as too stupid. Making assumptions that they are the same is, well, if the shoe fits...

So linking in with what Markreich said earlier on

a typical 18 year old who has enlisted is simply "too stupid" to get the skills to "find a better job".

Very true. And sometimes money isn't the only motivator, or they're looking for another benefit (GI Bill to pay for schooling for example).

The decline in real wages has also been an ongoing problem for a number of years.

Since 1945? Unless you can show some correlation, I think it's valid to conclude that the both wages and membership decline in recent years is just coincidence.

There's a decent chance that my union may strike next month over a number of issues.

Anyone here ever been on strike?
I spent 16 weeks on the picket line back in 1973, and again for 3 weeks in 1986.

Union participation has been falling since the early 50s... and since real wages have gone up multiple times since the 50s... no, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a FACT that being in a union keeps your wages DOWN over the long run!! :D

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-01-18-historicalunionmembership.gif
Being a long term union worker, I tend to disagree with you.

You should not only look at just the wage packet, but other benefits as well.

Pensions.
Paid breaks.
Hours of work.
Overtime rates of pay.
Healthcare.
Extended healthcare.
Dentalcare.
Retirement benefits.
Short and long term disability.
Sick leave benefits.
Holidays.
Clothing allowances.
Tool allowances.
Life insurance.
Cost of Living escalators.
Job security.
Improved health and safety environment.

I probably have missed some on this list, but those are the hidden benefits of union membership that the average non-union person doesn't receive, at least on a comparable level.

Being a long term union worker, I tend to disagree with you.

You should not only look at just the wage packet, but other benefits as well.

Pensions.
Paid breaks.
Hours of work.
Overtime rates of pay.
Healthcare.
Extended healthcare.
Dentalcare.
Retirement benefits.
Short and long term disability.
Sick leave benefits.
Holidays.
Clothing allowances.
Tool allowances.
Life insurance.
Cost of Living escalators.
Job security.
Improved health and safety environment.

I probably have missed some on this list, but those are the hidden benefits of union membership that the average non-union person doesn't receive, at least on a comparable level.

Being a long term NON-union worker...

Pensions - Have one.
Paid breaks - None, but they I don't have to punch a clock, either.
Hours of work. - 40
Overtime rates of pay. - Varies, but in my current role I do get 1:1 hours off for the hours I work OT, and I'm fine with that.
Healthcare. - Got it.
Extended healthcare - Got it.
Dentalcare. - Got it.
Retirement benefits. - (Like what? 401k? If so, got it).
Short and long term disability. - Got it.
Sick leave benefits. - Got it.
Holidays. - 10, plus 2 "floaters".
Clothing allowances. - No.
Tool allowances. - Got it.
Life insurance. - Got it.
Cost of Living escalators. - No, but then again
Job security. - No.
Improved health and safety environment - Got it.

Then I also have:
Cafeteria subsidized lunch ($3 for just about anything a normal human could eat...)
Paid cable modem (home)
3 weeks vacation, +1 week per 5 years service, no ceiling.
3 month paid sabbatical after 10 years of service.
Tuition reimbursement
Free time to take any professional exams or attend position related meetings, functions, etc.
Up to a 15% yearly bonus.

...all this without a union. :)

Look, unions do have a place in society. For manual trades or developing nations, for example. People that risk life and limb for a job need a group to fall back on in times of trouble. Writers, casino workers, teachers, et al? Not so much.

Heck, I'll say it: Unions are the reason why American primary education is so poor relative to many other countries.

Why should bad writers have their salaries propped up by collective bargaining? Why not let the industry pay them what they are worth?

I don't know why you'd believe that "the industry" has a more correct valuation. Collective bargaining in this instance seems to reflect a free market much better - no one had to go on strike if they didn't want to. Just because no all action was at an individual level doesn't mean it's not proper. The only reason to suspose it improper is if your only concern is the health of corporations.

I have no doubt that good writers, scarce as they are, would be in high demand and generously compensated. Why should they be held back by union scale?

Great writers can make a killing - maybe $5million for a screenplay. They aren't held back by other writers also getting their fair share.

I guess the answer is because they are sheep and willing to go along to get along. Clearly, their product says they are content with mediocrity.

There's no evidence for that.

One union fighting another union. Ban them both and let things run the way they should.

Again, isn't that against the interests of a free market? Or is it okay for the government to intervene when it benefits the corporations?

Being a long term NON-union worker...

Pensions - Have one.
Paid breaks - None, but they I don't have to punch a clock, either.
Hours of work. - 40
Overtime rates of pay. - Varies, but in my current role I do get 1:1 hours off for the hours I work OT, and I'm fine with that.
Healthcare. - Got it.
Extended healthcare - Got it.
Dentalcare. - Got it.
Retirement benefits. - (Like what? 401k? If so, got it).
Short and long term disability. - Got it.
Sick leave benefits. - Got it.
Holidays. - 10, plus 2 "floaters".
Clothing allowances. - No.
Tool allowances. - Got it.
Life insurance. - Got it.
Cost of Living escalators. - No, but then again
Job security. - No.
Improved health and safety environment - Got it.

Then I also have:
Cafeteria subsidized lunch ($3 for just about anything a normal human could eat...)
Paid cable modem (home)
3 weeks vacation, +1 week per 5 years service, no ceiling.
3 month paid sabbatical after 10 years of service.
Tuition reimbursement
Free time to take any professional exams or attend position related meetings, functions, etc.
Up to a 15% yearly bonus.

...all this without a union. :)

Look, unions do have a place in society. For manual trades or developing nations, for example. People that risk life and limb for a job need a group to fall back on in times of trouble. Writers, casino workers, teachers, et al? Not so much.

Heck, I'll say it: Unions are the reason why American primary education is so poor relative to many other countries.
However, you are not in an average non union situation are you?

Edit: BTW, do you have to co-pay for any of those benefits that you listed?

Heck, I'll say it: Unions are the reason why American primary education is so poor relative to many other countries.
How so?

BTW, in Canada, union membership is approximately 30%.

Union participation has been falling since the early 50s... and since real wages have gone up multiple times since the 50s... no, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a FACT that being in a union keeps your wages DOWN over the long run!! :D

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-01-18-historicalunionmembership.gifNominal wages have gone up, yes, but not to the point of keeping up with inflation. (Real wages are nominal wages with inflation taken into account; the purchasing power of wages.)

Since 1945? Unless you can show some correlation, I think it's valid to conclude that the both wages and membership decline in recent years is just coincidence.They've fluctuated a couple of times, but real wages were highest in 1972, and were over 15% less in 2004 than they were in 1972.

Link (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits%3A+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29)

Nominal wages have gone up, yes, but not to the point of keeping up with inflation. (Real wages are nominal wages with inflation taken into account; the purchasing power of wages.)

They've fluctuated a couple of times, but real wages were highest in 1972, and were over 15% less in 2004 than they were in 1972.

Link (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits%3A+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29)
I guess that kinda torpedos Markreich's claim.

Nominal wages have gone up, yes, but not to the point of keeping up with inflation recently. (Real wages are nominal wages with inflation taken into account; the purchasing power of wages.)


Fixed.

Inflation (CPI) has been pretty much flat from 1980-2005. That's almost unparalleled in history.

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/20051018_us_gdp.gif

As for wages keeping up: who's? That's your own responsibility, unless you're in a union. In which case, you tend to go on strike and lose. No thanks.

I guess that kinda torpedos Markreich's claim.

Only if one were stupid enough to expect to work the same job for 47 years and never get promoted or find a NEW one. LOL! The problem with things like that is that they assume a totally static population of workers. As we all know, that's not the case.

I'm French. What do you think? :D

What are you striking against at the moment? :D

When you consider the fact that they have no food, housing, or utilities expenses it isn't that bad.

Don't they? Interesting the ADF has their personnel pay for food, accommodation and utilities, at a greatly discounted price I will grant you that, but still, if we look at E-3 they only earn $19000 a year, even without having to pay for food, accommodation and utilities that still isn't much.


Huh? This is typically a single 18 year old working at his first real job. I'd say that's a pretty damn good monthly rate for someone with no other real skills besides good health.

Any E1, E2, or even E3 that gets married and has kids has rocks in his head and should have never passed the physical. They DON'T make enough to support a family.

Yes ok fine E1<4 months maybe and comparing to my wage when I was 18 I think I was only on $25000. But look at E-3 with two years service they will only receive $20256 is that really comparable with a 19 year old without much skill in the US? In my second year I was on $80000 a year, but then I am in Australia so it would be interesting to see what one might expect in the US.

Side note: Not union, never have been, and never have been on strike. I'd scab if I needed to do so to get by, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do so.

Further, if there were one of these so-called "student strikes" of nitwits trying to ruin my duly paid for classes, I would scab, and I would ostentatiously do so. And, I would tazer anyone who tried to get in my way.

However, you are not in an average non union situation are you?

Edit: BTW, do you have to co-pay for any of those benefits that you listed?
The situation is not so unique as you might want it to be... Hourly workers at my company are covered much the same as salaried employees. The benefits fit much the same profile as listed above.

We all co-pay for the insurance benefits, but so do many union members.

Yes ok fine E1<4 months maybe and comparing to my wage when I was 18 I think I was only on $25000. But look at E-3 with two years service they will only receive $20256 is that really comparable with a 19 year old without much skill in the US? In my second year I was on $80000 a year, but then I am in Australia so it would be interesting to see what one might expect in the US.

Wasn't the Australian dollar about half of the US dollar most of the last decade? I don't know how long ago you were at $25K, but a past exchange rate is something to consider. Not now, of course...

Here's a data point. We offer college grads with engineering degrees between $50K and $65K per year. That's pretty competitive.

Another data point. My daughter earns $8.25/hour at Sears. That's nominally $16.5K. Better than the E-1, but without the advancement and future salary potential.

Only if one were stupid enough to expect to work the same job for 47 years and never get promoted or find a NEW one. LOL! The problem with things like that is that they assume a totally static population of workers. As we all know, that's not the case.
Okay, let's put the benefits aside for awhile and consider this (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Union+vs.+Nonunion%3A+Wages+(2004)):

Union vs. Nonunion: Wages (2004)
Union v. Non-Union: Median Weekly Earnings in 2004
Union Non-union Dollar
Difference Percent
Difference
All $781 $612 $169 28%
Private $739 $604 $135 22%
Public $832 $683 $149 22%
Male $829 $685 $144 21%
Female $723 $541 $182 34%
Construction $893 $588 $305 52%
Manufacturing $694 $654 $40 6%
Transportation and Warehousing $819 $619 $200 32%
Utilities $979 $948 $31 3%
Healthcare and Social Assistance $656 $588 $68 12%
Wholesale Trade $722 $674 $48 7%
Retail Trade $567 $507 $60 12%
Service Occupations $655 $389 $266 68%

The situation is not so unique as you might want it to be... Hourly workers at my company are covered much the same as salaried employees. The benefits fit much the same profile as listed above.

We all co-pay for the insurance benefits, but so do many union members.
I truly believe that on the whole, when considering all circumstances, union members are going to fare better than non-union workers.

BTW, you used the term "much the same" twice in the above post, which can and usually does mean a significant difference, when considering what benefits apply to the two groups and what scale of co-payment that would apply. And that is in a non-union environment? Do you have outside comparators that performj the same work in a union environment?

Wasn't the Australian dollar about half of the US dollar most of the last decade? I don't know how long ago you were at $25K, but a past exchange rate is something to consider. Not now, of course...

Here's a data point. We offer college grads with engineering degrees between $50K and $65K per year. That's pretty competitive.

Another data point. My daughter earns $8.25/hour at Sears. That's nominally $16.5K. Better than the E-1, but without the advancement and future salary potential.

It was only a few years ago and I believe at that point AUD/USD .65-.69 or there abouts no not now it is near parity, but due to the Uncovered Interest parity principle you should expect to see that fall over the next ten years, it would be sooner but China is in the way.

Regardless, those people in the position I am doing now would be receiving a lot more I wouldn't be surprised if it was over $30,000 now, but then as the unions screwed up the award because they believed their own spin, the wages of those people I was working with wouldn't have risen that much and would now be less in real terms than it was when I was working there.

Yes that is very competitive, as a side point a Private in the ADF after completing basic trading receives $36658 that is a lot more than an E-1>4 months.

Complete pay scales here: http://content.defencejobs.gov.au/pdf/triservice/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf

From looking at your daughter pay rate it seems Americans are paid less than in Australia, someone in your daughters position (depending on how old your daughter is) I will go with an adult would expect about $19 an hour. But then again maybe living expenses in America isn't as much as in the US, something else to consider

I truly believe that on the whole, when considering all circumstances, union members are going to fare better than non-union workers.
I guess if one is happy working in an environment where they will never be recognized for their ability and only for their seniority, then union is the way to go.

I can live with unions if they 1) never make me join and 2) never force my employees to join.

Okay, let's put the benefits aside for awhile and consider this (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Union+vs.+Nonunion%3A+Wages+(2004)):

Union vs. Nonunion: Wages (2004)
Union v. Non-Union: Median Weekly Earnings in 2004
Union Non-union Dollar
Difference Percent
Difference
All $781 $612 $169 28%
Private $739 $604 $135 22%
Public $832 $683 $149 22%
Male $829 $685 $144 21%
Female $723 $541 $182 34%
Construction $893 $588 $305 52%
Manufacturing $694 $654 $40 6%
Transportation and Warehousing $819 $619 $200 32%
Utilities $979 $948 $31 3%
Healthcare and Social Assistance $656 $588 $68 12%
Wholesale Trade $722 $674 $48 7%
Retail Trade $567 $507 $60 12%
Service Occupations $655 $389 $266 68%

Firstly, it's already 3 years out of date compared to their souce (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), but I'll work with this anyway.

Click on table 2 and see the disclaimer:
Data refer to the sole or principal job of full-time wage and salary workers. Excluded are all self-employed workers regardless of whether or not their businesses are incorporated.

So this basically rules out all small business (or about HALF the US economy), rules out most contractors, and even rules out specialists that split up their days and are in solely non-union roles such as high-wage jobs such as doctors, lawyers, and various IT, Finance, etc workers.

In short, it's just a comparison between Union and Non-Union, while removing as many of the non-union wage earners from the survey as possible. While we're at it, want to talk about how the Union folks are forking over X% of that "extra" money they're making in dues? ;)

Fixed.

Inflation (CPI) has been pretty much flat from 1980-2005. That's almost unparalleled in history.And yet wages haven't been keeping up with it, showing the devastation that lack of union participation can cause.

As for wages keeping up: who's? That's your own responsibility, unless you're in a union. In which case, you tend to go on strike and lose. No thanks.Whose wages? Well, the chart is for "the average weekly earnings (in 1982 constant dollars) for all private nonfarm workers". So, the vast majority of the country's working population.

Firstly, it's already 3 years out of date compared to their souce (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), but I'll work with this anyway.

Click on table 2 and see the disclaimer:
Data refer to the sole or principal job of full-time wage and salary workers. Excluded are all self-employed workers regardless of whether or not their businesses are incorporated.

So this basically rules out all small business (or about HALF the US economy), rules out most contractors, and even rules out specialists that split up their days and are in solely non-union roles such as high-wage jobs such as doctors, lawyers, and various IT, Finance, etc workers.

In short, it's just a comparison between Union and Non-Union, while removing as many of the non-union wage earners from the survey as possible. While we're at it, want to talk about how the Union folks are forking over X% of that "extra" money they're making in dues? ;)
Yup, it was a comparison between Union and Non-Union workers.

According to you number of self employed workers is nowhere near 50%.

According to published and unpublished data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 14.4 million U. S. workers, or 10.5 percent of the workforce, were self-employed in incorporated or unincorporated businesses in 2002.
At any rate, it appears that unionized workers fare better than non-unionized workers.

Get out there and organize folks!!

And yet wages haven't been keeping up with it, showing the devastation that lack of union participation can cause.

Whose wages? Well, the chart is for "the average weekly earnings (in 1982 constant dollars) for all private nonfarm workers". So, the vast majority of the country's working population.

LOL! I see what we have here is a failure to communicate. If wages were always ahead of inflation, it would cause more inflation since people have more money. That's how this game works. Find me someone today that doesn't get cost of living increases every year at the very least. The only time I've EVER seen that is if the company in question is going out of business. In that case, a SMART worker abandons ship anyway.

Only if they're dumb enough to keep working the same job and not improve themselves. QED.

Yup, it was a comparison between Union and Non-Union workers.

According to you number of self employed workers is nowhere near 50%.


At any rate, it appears that unionized workers fare better than non-unionized workers.

Get out there and organize folks!!

WHAT workers? Where are the doctor's unions? The IT unions? The lawyers unions? The pizza delivery unions? C'mon now. The numbers are so obviously stilted it's a joke, as they only consider possible union job vs. the non-unionized workers IN those industries!

Self employed + non-union positions = WAY > 50%!

Yes. Organize your future by self improvement and work, not paying dues in some ponzi scheme. :rolleyes:

LOL! I see what we have here is a failure to communicate. If wages were always ahead of inflation, it would cause more inflation since people have more money. Not necessarily; things could become cheaper to make. With that said, in most cases you are correct, but as I said, real wages are over 15% lower in 2004 than they were in 1972. That's a massive disparity.

That's how this game works. Find me someone today that doesn't get cost of living increases every year at the very least.
In order to get a cost of living increase, that would mean a wage increase equal to or greater than the inflation rate, because real wages would have to rise proportionally or higher than the inflation rate.

Only if they're dumb enough to keep working the same job and not improve themselves. QED.Employment > unemployment

Not necessarily; things could become cheaper to make. With that said, in most cases you are correct, but as I said, real wages are over 15% lower in 2004 than they were in 1972. That's a massive disparity.


In order to get a cost of living increase, that would mean a wage increase equal to or greater than the inflation rate, because real wages would have to rise proportionally or higher than the inflation rate.

Employment > unemployment
As I expected, your link is a biased source. I'm looking at the quarterly survey that BLS does and I'll show you how real wage increases have been the norm since 1980. You'll have to wait a while, but you can read this paper for starters...
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf

I can live with unions if they 1) never make me join and 2) never force my employees to join.So you wouldn't oppose your employees choosing to unionize?

As I expected, your link is a biased source. I'm looking at the quarterly survey that BLS does and I'll show you how real wage increases have been the norm since 1980. You'll have to wait a while, but you can read this paper for starters...
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdfThis link deals with total compensation, not just wages. Compensation programs are far less uniform than wages.

However, Chart 2 of your source does deal with the "average and weekly earnings" of employees, and it shows that increases in earnings have not been the norm since 1980. You could make the case that they've typically increased since 1993, with the biggest increases from 1996-2000 (hooray, minimum wage increase!), but not to the point of making up for the generally decreasing trend in wages from 1980-1993.

Not necessarily; things could become cheaper to make. With that said, in most cases you are correct, but as I said, real wages are over 15% lower in 2004 than they were in 1972. That's a massive disparity.


In order to get a cost of living increase, that would mean a wage increase equal to or greater than the inflation rate, because real wages would have to rise proportionally or higher than the inflation rate.

Employment > unemployment

And I've pointed out that the data used to make that judgement is woefully stilted.

Exactly so. *Most* people I know get 2-5% a year as a baseline. Which keeps with inflation, and until VERY recently EXCEEDED inflation. Never mind them getting actual promotions or raises for... doing GOOD work!

Yes!! And having one's compensation not tied to the lowest common denominator? PRICELESS! :D

So you wouldn't oppose your employees choosing to unionize?

This link deals with total compensation, not just wages. Compensation programs are far less uniform than wages.

However, Chart 2 of your source does deal with the "average and weekly earnings" of employees, and it shows that increases in earnings have not been the norm since 1980. You could make the case that they've typically increased since 1993, with the biggest increases from 1996-2000 (hooray, minimum wage increase!), but not to the point of making up for the generally decreasing trend in wages from 1980-1993.
But compensation is what people receive. Not just wages. Anyway, I figure chasing down his references is about a half hour effort and I have some work to do on the barn. I may get to it this afternoon, or more likely later in the weekend.

Of course I oppose unionization. But it's legal, so I'd probably continue in business and deal with the union. If it became too problematic, I'd close the business. Then the union, just like ALPA did with Eastern, could brag about how they brought me down. Don't worry that I'm working because I want to and their members are working to pay the bills.

And I've pointed out that the data used to make that judgement is woefully stilted.Even the source Myrmidonisia gave indicated that throughout much of this time period, wages did not rise with inflation.

Exactly so. *Most* people I know get 2-5% a year as a baseline. Which keeps with inflation, and until VERY recently EXCEEDED inflation.Most people you know are not the average worker, as the sources put forth contradict this.

Never mind them getting actual promotions or raises for... doing GOOD work! Whether or not most people who do good work are recognized with a promotion or raise (highly doubtful), this doesn't happen often enough to reverse the trend of declining real wages.

Yes!! And having one's compensation not tied to the lowest common denominator? PRICELESS! :DEven if this was the case with the majority of unions (it isn't), it's still a massive improvement over what people get in similar jobs in a nonunionized workplace.

But compensation is what people receive. Not just wages.Compensation is what people receive, yes, but the people on the low end of the spectrum typically receive negligable compensation packages (unless they're unionized).
This is especially important to note because employers have begun shifting some of the costs of healthcare onto their employees, so workers are paying healthcare costs that they weren't paying before.

Of course I oppose unionization. But it's legal, so I'd probably continue in business and deal with the union. If it became too problematic, I'd close the business.At the very least, would you refrain from indimidating your employees, be the intimidation legal or illegal?