Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1
Richie, I say the following with a heck of a lot of respect for you. I like reading all of your posts. You are very intelligent, well spoken and respectful. I am just going to say something for you to think about. It is my opinion and because I know you are thoughtful and very intelligent, I hope you will think about it and not take in any shape, form or fashion as disrespectful.
Before unions and the minimum wage laws in this country, the free market system in America worked and Americans did pretty well for themselves and their families. Even now, how many people in the US are members of trade unions? About 12.3 percent of salary and wage earners are union members and the numbers are declining.
In the overall scheme of life, labor unions benefit their members. And that is fine for union members. But to say their wages benefit others workers isn't really a true statement. In 2009, according to the US Dept. of Labor, "among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $908, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $710. (My opinion, that that $710 isn't so bad for nonunion. How much more could good workers earn if their pay was based on performance and productivity?)
"The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million) and New York (2.0 million). About half of the 15.3 million union members in the U.S. lived in just 6 states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million; Illinois, 1.0 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; and Michigan and New Jersey, 0.7million each), though these states accounted for only one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally."
Closed shops deny people a choice and deny people freedoms to do business with whomever they choice. Unions recognize the way to get power is to have the federal government on their side. Why are so many unions headquartered in DC? Federal workers get a great degree of security and lots of fringe benefits.
Government and trade unions protect their workers and their members at someone else's expense. Restriction of entry into an occupation because of unions does so at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. Governments pay workers higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayers.
Free market and competition for the best workers and workers competing for the best jobs results in higher productivity, greater capital investment, greater diffused skills, all this makes the entire free market work at it's best for the benefit of the employers, workers, consumers and taxpayers.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm |
I have to vehemently disagree with your first point; as unskilled workers were exploited terribly before the rise of the Unions. I still say it's the fear of their workers organizing that prods employers to offer a more fair wage. Many companies are now abusing the use of part-timers to avoid mandates that have been put in place to protect full-time employees. A Union company would be prevented or restricted in this use and abuse of part-timers to avoid compensating their workers fairly.
Your second point I've already disagreed with above; employers hiring unskilled or semi-skilled workers, say in trucking and construction, and who cut corners in work place safety, would be prevented from doing this by a Union workforce. (e.g. While between jobs, many years ago, I was informed of a Carrier,a small non-union job, needing a few drivers for a big, but temporary job. I went down, and got a position and was directed to a piece of crap relic of a truck that pulled to one side and had really spongy brakes. When I went to the dispatcher to report this, he looked at me and said take it or go home. I really needed the work, but went home because I won't risk my life or someone else's; but someone took that truck out.)
I'm not sure of your figures in your third point, and how many of these people you list are public union employees, as I'm defending private unions, but the bigger cities have more workers and hence a bigger opportunity to organize.
I think "closed shop" is a misnomer. Most companies today, unlike in the Unions heyday, have ultimate control over who they do or do not hire, in my experience. What they do not have, once a worker achieves seniority is the ability to fire a worker without cause. Many Unions are located in D.C. today for the same reason as any lobbying group. Big business and Unions alike are pleading their case before the people who impact their lives and fortunes.
I think you have to spend some time working for a company where you're basically a number before you understand the love of the semi-skilled worker for the Union. In trucking, you may be a good worker, but you're just an ass in a seat, and they can find plenty of other asses to put in that seat if you demand dignity in your job. A construction worker? You think you're the only one who can push a wheelbarrow? I don't think so.
I don't think man's nature has changed much, and man does not share his fortune easily. This is becoming more and more true with, in my opinion, the decline of moral values in this country.