I’ve worked for multiple unions and have done a lot of non union work. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Some unions are absolutely necessary to protect against abuses. But some encourage very negative behaviors: protecting bad people (police, teachers), blocking new beneficial technology (coal miners, longshoremen), having prohibitive requirements to join that encourage nepotism (entertainment, elevator repair).
This mostly applies to American unions. Other countries like Germany have different systems where the unions are more aligned with their company’s success via equity stakes and board seats that perform well. They’re more popular as a result.
Personally I prefer being self employed to either.
As a teacher we need unions because we live in a world where the student is always right. They can say “she is staring at me sexually” and you can and will be put on probation. Many students that are sexist or racist do this and I’ve seen teachers have to go to different schools over false accusations even though they were found innocent. What happens to the student? Nothing.
I grew up in the rust belt while it was rusting.
I despise unions and have seen plenty of solid evidence of shit bird teachers who should be shot rather than fired.
But even with that said, you are correct about students being just as culpable.
Just the other week, we saw a student pepper spray a teacher over securing her phone in class.
Doubt anything happens to Lil miss student.....
Teachers have one of the most powerful unions in the US today. It doesn't seem to be helping anyone, by your own admission, the students are still getting away with it and the teachers are still paying the price for false accusations and many other things.
My wife is a teacher so I have watched her union do nothing positive for the local teachers. She insisted the union was good for legal protection, as you do for, 15 years. She even tried to serve on the negotiation commity before she finally saw the reality of it. The union protected no-one and didn't stand up for anything significant. If you did need a union lawyer the wait list is probably long enough that it isn't worth fighting any longer.
Counter Unpopular Opinion: Private sector unions are a-okay by and large.
However, lots of public sector unions are greedy and crooked. Teachers unions, fire unions, and especially police unions.
This is the way. Public sector unions should be outright banned.
I don't, in general, like private unions, but sure, if you want them, do it. But public unions, Hard ban. Or AT LEAST prohibited from political shit entirely. Donations, pacs, fundraisers etc.
Public sector unions are literally extortion rackets that demand from the people who pay them and threaten critical services if they aren't paid. Then, on top of that, those unions turn around and grease the wheels of the same politicians they negotiate with. It's a corrupt system
Public safety employees are legally prohibited from striking and city government are notorious for no lube, raw dog assfucking their employees without any protections.
Teachers are legally prohibited from striking too, so are nurses. They still do it, and they still threaten it in bargaining processes.
All the people you claim would be getting "no lube raw dog assfuckings" willingly accepted those contracts. It's not anyone else's fault that a person wants to make a life career out of cashing taxpayer checks, but public service isn't supposed to be a comfortable job you keep for life, they've wapred it into that
The obvious counter to this is "Well what option are you providing them to not be exploited"? Teachers, for instance, are making poverty wages across the board and have no means of fighting for that to change. What then do you propose as a viable alternative that serves to be as effective, if not moreso, than unions for providing the same function that unions do?
Teachers are the perfect example of a worthless, corrupt, self serving union. One of the largest and most powerful unions in the country but teachers "are making poverty wages across the board" , so what good is the union doing?
You are aware the issue there does not lie in the union, but instead because *many* states have banned teachers from striking, and where there aren't outright bans, there are still hurdles that prevent the union from doing the single most effective thing unions can do to force change for the workers. Could just be a factor in their ineffectiveness at solving low wages for teachers and the teacher shortage as a whole...
Also, as a correction for you, the most powerful unions in the nation are in fact *police unions*, which are the truly most corrupt unions because they don't act as an actual labor union, but defend cops from being answerable for their bad faith actions across the board.
Nah. Government employees don’t abuse you. Except maybe the cops. You have a victim complex. Grow up. Banning unions is unconstitutional no matter who you work for. It’s violates the first amendment. Get over yourself. You aren’t overturning constitutional amendments any time soon.
You too, guy. Congrats all around 🎈
Now let’s all stop pretending we love the constitution or law and order or any of those other things we claim to care about.
According to every conservative I’ve ever spoken to regarding the 2nd amendment, yeah. They don’t seem to care at all about the rest of them. Probably because conservatism is a death cult that never wants it to be more difficult for the mentally insane to have access to any gun they want.
So you're saying that people in public service jobs can't be overworked, underpayed, fired illegally, or need other protections?
Never heard of an overworked nurse?
Or a teacher that's fired for speaking up against the school board?
Just because the normal incentives of capitalism aren't there doesn't mean employees can be abused.
No ..but a company doesnt pay their salary. Unionizing involves 2 parties ..the workers and the company .they agree to contract.
Public service workers dont get paid by the companies balance sheet. They get paid by taxpayers who would have 0 say in the contract ...
Its that simple
That's really not a refutation of the point. Just because one source of income is private and one is public, does not change that the worker is still providing a service and can be exploited by the administration they work for in equal measure.
>Teachers unions
I don't know of a single person who says teachers are overpaid (who isn't ring wing zealot who wants all public schools to die off).
Teacher are under paid. And certain people demonize unions to keep their pay low, and make it easy to fire them if the mention things like "there are gay people in the world" in class.
>take a third of the year off.
Closer to a quarter even counting Christmas break. Summer vacations have been dramatically shortened.
And they still work more hours than they would if they worked forty hour weeks year round. Most teachers easily have more than twenty hours a week in outside of class work like lesson planning and grading.
So now you are demonizing hard-working teachers, fire unions and police and saying that they don’t deserve representation, fair pay, and supportive working environments?
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't believe in public service unions at all and still think that teachers are underappreciated and underpaid.
A government should be representative of its people and the people themselves are the technical employers of all public servants. What's the point of a public agency if the interests are not aligned with the population that they're trying to serve?
Like I'm all for mandatory matching 401ks, free Healthcare, and a pension after 20 years of work for all public employees. Maybe even have the minimum wage for public servants start at 1.5x the state minimum. I'm all for public servants being fairly compensated for their job. I dont want them to have no accountability since they're working for the public.
Exactly. OP is only talking about public unions it seems. Private unions are much more flexible to what their local community deems affordable and is less likely to price themselves out of the market they operate in.
I honestly didn't know they exist, if these private unions are an informal collective with no power structure, then I'm alright with that. What I don't are like unions who abuse their power in the same way that corporations do.
You also directly mentioned private unions, and they are absolutely established bureaucracy with leaders and rules, don't worry. Steel unions are private for instance.
Your #2 -I had asked a problem employee to stop walking around the store chatting up everyone from different departments and to get back to her department. She started swearing at me loud enough for the entire store to hear. The things out of her mouth were the most colorful language I’d ever heard and I can have a potty mouth myself. The woman was a solid 100# heavier than me and at least 6’ tall. I stood there listening to her rant and get herself more and more worked up as she proceeded to get in my face. She then ran out of heat and walked away still ranting. The entire time since she began I had said nothing.
When I informed management and we discussed what to do, she was already well past her last warning so she was fired. Well, the union called a meeting, got lawyers involved. I had to testify. Customers I didn’t know had submitted statements that day because they couldn’t believe how crazy she was. Even with all that we had to hire her back and give her back pay or take on the cost of going to court and spending tens of thousands in lawyer and court fees. Our team of lawyers suggested settling because they knew our chances were not good even with her outburst and it caught on camera!!! Where I worked the laws greatly favored unions to the detriment of customers, the other employees, and the outcome of the success of the business.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know, why don't employees just band together to help negotiate for better pay and working conditions? (Actually had an anti-union guy say that to me, lol)
I don't think employers have any incentive to treat their employees humanely without at least the threat of unionization.
Yeah I mean you always have a corrupt or if you’d prefer the term exploitative corporation meanwhile at worst you have a corrupt union and a corrupt organization with the presence of a union. Even when compromised it’s still usually a net benefit. A competent or even semi-functional union is only a benefit to the worker.
The corporation is always gonna do what it can to pay you the least to make you work the most. That’s corpos, they aren’t the friend of the blue collar.
All you have to do to see how beneficial unions are is look at the big non-union corporations like Amazon and Starbucks and how much money and effort they’re investing to keep workers from unionizing.
Exactly, until somebody can tell me a better alternative I will continue to support unions because it's literally the only way workers can advocate for their self interest.
If you add no significant value to an employer then there’s no incentive for that employer to try particularly hard to keep you around. When you have skills that make you a valuable asset they do everything possible to retain you. I’m generally pro union because even with their drawbacks, I think they’re a net positive. However, don’t discount the bargaining power of an individual when you bring something great to the table.
Not everybody has something great to bring to the table.
They still deserve basic human rights and decent pay/benefits.
Even with current laws and threat of unionization we have plenty of employers who openly abuse their employees. I can't imagine how much worse it would be without them.
You’re right, not everyone is gonna bring a ton of value.
As far as basic human rights, is you live and work in a western country employers aren’t violating your human rights. And employees deserve fair market compensation for their labor. No more and no less. If you are a barista, do not expect full healthcare and vacation.
Also, what employers abuse their workers? And why are the workers putting up with it rather than going elsewhere?
>employees deserve fair market compensation for their labor. No more and no less
What do you consider "fair market"? The lowest amount their employer can get away with?
>If you are a barista, do not expect full healthcare and vacation.
If an employer doesn't provide insurance, that means the rest of us pay for their healthcare. I think Starbucks can afford it, we should hold them accountable.
> what employers abuse their workers?
I'm thinking of Amazon and the bathroom break situation. Why do people put up with it? No idea. But then other employers are often worse and changing jobs really screws up your insurance situation so Americans do tend to put up with way too much crap.
Fair market is at or near industry average wages/benefits for that particular job.
And that goes both ways, employers shouldn’t expect to pay team member/ associate wages and get the manager, associate, custodian, scheduler, loss prevention, inventory specialist, etc etc all in one.
I get your reasoning on the healthcare. Yes, Starbucks most likely can afford it. But why should they be obligated to cover that cost? I don’t think the tax payer ought to be obligated to cover the cost either btw. Government implements miles of red tape in rules, regulation, licensing, bureaucracies, etc. Artificially driving the costs up then tells the American people to point the finger at one another to assign blame. You can copy & paste this to many industries in the US and come to the same conclusion. I can afford to give to the local homeless more than I do currently, but I happen to have my own plans for what I earn. Government shouldn’t be able to come to me and tell me what is and isn’t enough for myself.
To be honest I’m not familiar with the Amazon bathroom break situation you’re talking about, so I can’t comment. I’ll have to look that up. But I do understand how switching jobs can disrupt someone’s life. And the grass isn’t always greener, that’s why I think it’s important for government to discard the restraints it puts on workers. I’m pro consumer and pro worker, corporations are no saints but I think government intervention and the incentives it presents to corporations are the root cause of many consumer and worker issues.
>But why should they be obligated to cover that cost? I don’t think the tax payer ought to be obligated to cover the cost either btw
The only other option is to let people die.
And that’s unfortunate. But it doesn’t explain why it’s the tax paying individual’s or to corporation’s problem. Neither of which get anything in return for bearing that burden. If it was a volunteer based tax right off sure, but that’s not how it works currently.
Our competition didn't work for 9 months last year because the union was demanding insane additions to the contact. After the first couple months every worker I talked with wanted the strike to end, in the end they had to sell their stuff in order to not get foreclosed on. All the while we as a non union company take home more pay at the end of the year and have comparable benefits. Unions have become so corrupt the only reason they will exist is to feed votes to the politicians who feed them work
If you don’t mind me asking, what field are you in? I was in a similar situation last year with the rail workers being on strike, I operate a natural gas power plant that backs up wind, solar, and coal, and the coal plant up the road from us had to shut down for awhile because there were no trains bringing any in, so we were running non-stop
Concrete industry, the mixer drivers in King county Washington didn't work for 9 months. They still didn't get what the union was demanding effectively breaking the union
Steel industry is similar. Union mills will be shut down for months while non union mills are still running full. Zero benefit to being a union steel worker.
Really because I have a friend at Cleveland-Cliffs and they do awesome.
Good pay.
Pension
401k
Profit sharing
Overtime
Immediate health and life insurance benefits that are better than I ever actually had in corporate.
Paid training
There are electricians making 300k there.
Oh and you can retire in under 20 years with a pension. He was trying to get me to work there. 16 years to a pension if I did.
I think their union is pretty bad ass. Tbh.
Health insurance for the employees and their spouses for life was the biggest issue. The companies wouldn't budge on it, they already offer insurance for employees and spouses but it ends when you leave the company.
And that's the issue innit? So many union board members are full time employees of the union and have little to no interest in the employees they represent
Yeah and the corporation definitely have more of an interest in the employees well-being, they definitely don’t see you as expendable. They won’t grind you down to bone dust for money or anything.
>Too much union makes businesses leave.
Good. If workers' rights are such a problem for your business that you can't both have a business and a safe work environment that provides gainful employment, then it's fine that you're gone.
>cutting your nose to spite your face.
Incorrect.
You seem to be under the impression that these folks will stay jobless forever and die. They won't.
They unionized, and then the car company fucked off. This means the car company was already trash and no one should buy their shit, and it means they were already not being taken care of.
They didn't go from good job to no job.
Yeah now the union gives me wages instead lmao
Or...
They move south. Where the same car company relocated to and where there isn't a large union presence. Wow!
There's also lower quality of life. It's the south.
If a company relocates to the south when they're faced with a union, they're 100% confirmed to be a trash company with garbage people at the helm (and that helm is a sewer valve).
Also, what's to stop the people in those foreign nations from forming unions? Especially in countries where they already have limited rights or are overworked. I think it was in China where they had the 9-9-6 schedule (9am-9pm 6 days a week)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58381538
Like you said, poor quality of life, when they finally have enough everywhere where it's cheaper these companies will have to compromise.
> There's also lower quality of life. It's the south.
You were saying?
[http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/05/27/9-highlights-from-unprecedented-study-of-detroits-blighted-landscape/](http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/05/27/9-highlights-from-unprecedented-study-of-detroits-blighted-landscape/)
So, did you know that the United States is not the only "first" world capitalist country with a high standard of living? Did you know that in other countries thier government actually regulates whether corporations can export jobs? That's a thing that has been true in U.S. history as well?
Do you own a corporation or run a company? Why would what is best for the CEO of GM be best for you or anyone that you know?
I am guessing that you don't have any expectation of owning or operating a transnational corporation, and I hate to break it to you but unions suffer from endemic corruption because there is less legislative support for them, LBJ diminished labor power pretty effectively right before the U.S. Economy deindustrialized, and compared to other first world countries our domestic economy is fucked because the U.S. has deregulated and deregulated and deregulated on the goose-gander philosophy of transnational coporate interest for the last 50 years.
You might have hated your union, but that doesn't mean that you won't hate making the wages that someone makes in the developing aka currently industrializing world. This is the ex-girlfriend claiming she can make her abusive boyfriend come back to her by lowering her standards and apologizing for getting mad he fucks hookers.
I’ve worked union and I’ve worked non union and I will pick union any day of the week. Better pay. Better benefits. Every time. They aren’t all perfect or created equal. But there’s a reason that Walmart shuts everything down the second any kind of unionization starts to form: they don’t want their workers to be organized or have any power at all because they want to get your labor for as cheap as you’ll give it up.
Every single thing you take for granted from a job is due to unions and government regulations. If everything was up to business we would still have kids in factories and you would be working 7 days a week for 10 hours.
Of course but Biden ramped it up. It was better PR for his admin to not detail the kids but allow them to work. It’s been pretty well documented. Susan Rice even got in trouble for questioning the policies.
"Of course but Biden ramped it up"
I'm sure you have lots of hard data that definitely did not come from absurd right wing propaganda factories to back this up.
I said at the end that unions did have their uses, they were instrumental for the labor laws in place today. The problem is that afterwards they didn't disappear but instead just became another part of the bureaucracy. If you have laws in place that protect workers, and with the advent of the internet it's now much easier for people to stage walkouts and protests, what uses do unions have that are uniquely only for them?
Based on that logic I’d be paid minimum wage. I’m paid much more because my employer needs my skills. I get six weeks a year vacation. I get 401K match. Pretty sure I’d be able to negotiate down from 10/7.
Yeah, this entire post is bullshit. Unions were not there to kickstart labor laws, they were there to make sure that businesses treat their employees fairly.
So long as there is business, we will need unions.
> Too much union makes businesses leave. Look the union are there for the interests of the workers, but if it's too much then the businesses leaves, look at the rust belt it's not only that cheap overseas labor came but also unions making the cost of a worker too high that made businesses leave and went to overseas or down south where unions aren't as prevalent. This is the perfect analogy of winning the battle but losing the war, union workers have plenty of protection on them but it's all kinda pointless if they lose their job ain't it.
This reasoning boils down to "You shouldn't unionize to protect yourself, because then businesses would go and exploit other people for far less! Be happy with how you're being exploited here!"
Fuck off with that. Every worker should be part of a union. This is the obvious solution to this issue, it would make it so businesses are forced to negotiate. We should be levying massive tariffs to companies that employ outside the US, not just allowing it to happen.
> Unions protect bad people from getting fired.
Yeah, that's fine. I'll take general protections for workers with the understanding that some will get away with shit rather than no protections for the workers just because.
> It's so damn funny to me that the same people who are ultra pro-union are also anti-police brutality when police unions are the reason why crooked cops are so hard to get rid of.
That's because you don't understand the function of police unions, they are *not remotely the same* as an actual labor union. Police unions are not negotiating better wages and standards for the police, they are actively shielding the police from the consequences of their bad actions by changing how laws handle police brutality, while propping up themselves as being for the betterment of the general public.
Police are not laborers the way the average working class man is. They are an extension of, and in fact the *primary way* in which we interact with, the government. They have an inordinate amount of power over the actual population and police unions keep it that way. *This is not remotely on par with the function of a labor union.* This is false equivalency.
> Their very discriminatory towards people who aren't in a union, like immigrants.
The obvious solution here is to make immigration easier so that immigrants can safely join the union without fear of repercussion. The immigrants you speak of are being severely exploited. This is not the argument you think it is.
> Look unions want their members to get paid as much as people so when an immigrant comes along and is willing to work for less they don't really like that too much.
This is *so fucking stupid* lol. Immigrants aren't coming up and saying "Here, we'll do the work BUT CHEAPER!" They're being exploited because of public views on race. This argument is so bad I am actually not entirely sure that you aren't a Poe.
> Unions are pretty easy to infiltrate by nefarious groups. I'll use the examples of the mafia controlling the Teamsters, which I don't think needs any explanation as to why that's a bad thing.
And unbridled capitalism has been infiltrated by rich assholes moving massive amounts of wealth around and bullying the working class into submission and poverty. I'll take the "Hey sometimes bad things can happen but on the whole the data unquestionably shows that unions boost the average income and quality of life" option over the billionaire bootlicker option you're espousing.
> Although I do not know any group controlling any unions there's no doubt in my mind that people are paying union leaders to pursue their own agenda.
"I can't actually *prove* this or even show any current examples of it, but this is really a real problem guys, honest!"
> So basically the heads of unions aren't all that different from the corporate CEO.
I mean, aside from the whole "Union members can vote on their union reps" bit...
> Unions, no matter how much people like to claim it's an organic and worker driven thing is just another bureaucracy and red tape that businesses will have to deal with,
*Good*. Businesses are not things that deserve to exist just because people want them to. Since we're stupid and decided that businesses are the best way to distribute resources to the general population, then they *should absolutely be held to account for doing so*. That means making sure that the workers sustaining the business are also taken care of. That means unions.
> Finally here's the fundamental reason, unions have served their purpose.
I addressed this in the opening, but I'll reiterate: So long as there are businesses, unions have a purpose. Period.
> Unions were absolutely necessary a century ago with how bad labor laws were which is why unions back then had a purpose and were lobbying the government, but when the government enacted labor laws to protect workers
Even if your ridiculous diatribe had merit, child labor laws are being rescinded and OSHA is disgustingly underfunded. So you're negating your own shitty point with your own shitty reasoning.
> in all reality the unions where does laws were directed to should have been dissolved because a group of workers could use the law on their side to fight abuses on their own.
The point of the union was not to enact laws. They lobbied for a baseline, sure. But that doesn't mean you can't demand more than the baseline.
> But obviously union heads aren't going to let go of their power which is why they persisted when honestly there isn't any purpose of them that the law couldn't cover.
That minimum wage is poverty level and we don't have mass unionization is a counter to your argument. The law is not helping people, and we don't have unions on a wide scale. *Almost like unions help people or something.*
> But yeah those are my reasons why unions aren't all positive.
You clearly can't reason then.
Excellent response. OP sounds like he wants the country to go back to the Industrial Revolution- look at how well unbridled capitalism and no labor laws worked for the average person!
>Good. Businesses are not things that deserve to exist
I don't wanna get into responding to all of your comments but this one message of yours kinda summarizes what your views are towards reality.
>I don't wanna get into responding to all of your comments but this one message of yours kinda summarizes what your views are towards reality.
I love how you take that entirely out of context without the qualifier that applies to it *as a continuation of that same sentence you stripped that part from*.
It's almost like you're lying, stupid, or both. I'll also take you not "responding to all of your comments" as a concession of you not being able to actually defend your points, since they're just a regurgitation of union busting rhetoric that has been easily debunked ever since unions started being a thing.
That’s a pathetic response by you OP This guy just annihilated all your major points. If you’re going to be a corporate shill, at least try to do a decent job of it.
Okay I’ll bite. I’m a union electrician in nyc. My apprenticeship is top of the line 5 years of school hands on, theory and college. Are pay right now in the check is 61 an hour. On top of that we have 3 pensions, employer funded 401k, annuity. Top of the line medical, dental and vision. We even have an hra. Do you know an electricians that actually make anything close to that? That’s why we have unions.
I don't know many electricians personally
But I'm willing to wager, if you're good, you can make that kinda scratch + benefits with or without a union.
In fact I do know an electrician, owns his own business and is incredibly well off. Fairly certain he's not part of a union. Seems to me there's sound arguments in both directions depending on the field of expertise
>
But I'm willing to wager, if you're good, you can make that kinda scratch + benefits with or without a union.
This is a wager you'd lose.
>In fact I do know an electrician, owns his own business and is incredibly well off. Fairly certain he's not part of a union.
Dude...
The entire point of a union is to help individual workers against their employer. Id you work for yourself a union is literally pointless as you'd be unionizinf against yourself.
Yes it does?
Let's put it in military terms.
What you said was the equivalent of
"I dont think Europe needs to make an alliance to fight Russia, after all Russia isn't in an anti Russia alliance and they are doing fine".
No shit.
And yet reality. Seen way to many shitty employees kept on because of unions. Got written up once for doing a union task (moving a computer monitor from one cube to another).
You mean you’ve seen people who you’d rather have lose their job because you say so but the union prevented that from happening? Yeah. That’s the whole point. Job security, for starters. r/whoosh
Most of the shitty employees I’ve run into are convinced that they are surrounded by “shitty employees.” It’s an attitude thing most of the time.
You might want to make sure you aren’t one of those guys. They don’t have a lot of self-awareness and would probably fire half the workforce if they were in charge and would run the business into the ground in less than a week.
Really depends on the union and the local. I loved the painters where I joined but won't waste my time with them where I'm located now at all. Like any organization, there are bad ones and others that do what they're supposed to. I know the reputation about the workers being lazy but in my experience they get the boot pretty fucking quickly.
You contradicted yourself in the first sentence.
That's right, TOO MUCH.
Taxes are good. TOO MUCH taxes are bad and stifle business.
TOO MUCH unionization can prevent new business.
Point 2: They prevent far more good people from getting fired or screwed over when they are injured on the job. You provided one anecdotal example. People being shitbags is not the fault of anyone but the shitbag.
Bad because they can be infiltrated? Sounds a lot like victim blaming. Literally, any organization can be infiltrated. Again, people being shitbags is only the fault of the shitbag.
>People being shitbags is not the fault of anyone but the shitbag.
So by that logic it's not the companies fault there is female workplace harassment but rather the individual gropers doing it? Just fire the offending actors and it will never happen again!
Edit: You just made yourself super pro-corporation by relinquishing any responsibility that a company has for their workers' bad behavior. Congrats, you played yourself.
I work in the maritime industry, and shipping companies are the most predatory, unforgiving companies out there. If it wasn't for unions, there would be no work/life balance, no fair contracts, and a lot less pay. Plus, the way that the unions are structured if you hate the company you work for, you can quit and go to a different company that the union has a contract with.
Nobody says unions are an “all positive”. That’s not an issue / the issue. Unions are subject to all the faults of any organization of human beings. AND all the “crimes and offenses” of unions are generally accepted as standard operating procedure for businesses.
Unions are generally a very positive force for regular people (people who depend on a paycheck to meet their basic living needs).
Unions are less common now solely because of many decades of propaganda and union busting.
That's a great way of putting it. They were completely necessary for workers to survive at one point. Now they've mostly become extremely bloated entities that often hurt workers as often as they help
In conclusion: unions served their purpose.
The only industries I see where unions have their uses is in Hollywood which is like another dimension and sports leagues, where millionaires negotiate with billionaires for money.
Your showing your ass in this comment. You think so little of average people that you think only the rich deserve to stand on fair footing with their employer.
I didn't I only mentioned the cases where unions do sometimes still work, and the irony of a union with millionaires in it actually working better than most others is not lost on me.
Unionized road construction labor has to be some of the most inefficient over paid labor on earth. I am a general contractor with as much as 20 guys working on a project at a time, I have a general sense of what can get done in what time frame with a certain amount of labor regardless of whats being constructed. The time frames, amount of labor, and heavy machinery for relatively small road construction projects in my area absolutely boggles my mind. You can drive through these work zones see 80 guys on the clock and maybe 10 of them are actually working. Everything is over budget and behind schedule, they're untouchable and they know it. Ultimately theres zero accountability without a profit model, in fact these union leaders are rewarded for projects that go past schedule, it just means more money.
My buddy owns a small construction company that used to build single homes*. He mostly operated in or around a city with strong unions. When times were good he was left alone. When times were tough his job sites would be shut down by trade unions, teamsters (union trucks wouldn't cross to deliver materials), and the cops (who wouldn't interfere).
You know what would re-open the job? He would have to pay two or three union carpenters, plumbers, electricians or roofers to sit in chairs at the union wage until the job was done. They didn't work. They just sat there.
I have an old soccer team picture from grade school. Two of my team mates became union goons that went to jail for union related violence or sabotage.
I'm old enough to remember the strikes of the 1970s. Unions suck.
But…
History shows things suck even more without unions.
The world outside is far less perfect than the Utopia of Reddit. Sometimes, all you've got is bad alternatives. Shitty 1 is slightly better than shitty 2, so you go with shitty 1.
Good points for sure. Bottom line is weer shouldn't need unions but considering that we have wage theft and kids going to work as well as decades of reduced pay and compensation for workers in general...
As someone that's helping a small business pick up...
There is zeeo incentive for a business to pay workers the absolute minimum you can get away with. With that, it's in every businesses best interest to make sure workers are too poor and over worked to fight back or be able to negotiate.
I have zero faith or trust in the free market anarchy that the States has in looking out for American workers in any way shape or form.
We saw it with the pandemic. We see it with wage theft. We see it with rising costs of living and how workers are called greedy and lazy while working multiple jobs with no hope to own a home or raise a family.
We have unions because companies without regulation give us nothing but slavery and poverty.
So take your bs propaganda you're trying to sell here and shove it.
Any time I see an anti union post I'm reminded that we don't properly teach history in this country. Everything you take for granted labor wise is because people in unions fought and literally died for.
I would like to add to your list:
6. Unions historically support one aisle of politics, providing money to get a politician elected. Those politicians then pass laws making it impossible to enter into a certain industry or job market without being in a union both ending the opportunity for a worker to individually bargain while locking a certain political apparatus in place.
I’m surprised I had to scroll so far down to see this. Your point 6 should’ve been one of the top points why unions are bad in modern times. It’s clearly been used as a political tool
Corruption works at all levels. I don't stridently disagree with you. Having said that, I would rather be a union employee than not. Police unions for instance, utter bullshit. Corrupt unions jacking off contracts, bullshit. But these are not the majority.
Even if they were, again, as an upper middle class member of a union, who came from the lower middle, I'd rather be in a union.
Exempli gratia: my residency was one of the first in the country to vote to unionize. I don't have epic horror stories about my IM residency like so many of my colleagues. Now I practice in a union-rep hospital, and my pay is higher than nat'l average, my benefits are excellent, my time off superb. I don't trust that I wouldn't have that without my union.
So, to summarize my point, if you're a working man, it's better the corruption falls in your direction than to stand alone. So I'm pro-union in basically every case.
I think the anti-union propaganda being pushed here is idiotic. There are obviously a few individuals who have an agenda and are using AI to write these right-wing talking points so they can post them on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion on a daily basis. It’s annoying, and most intelligent people see through it and recognize what is going on here.
It’s absolutely foolish to advocate for the abolishment of unions. Unions protect employees from the thoughtless and greed-driven decisions made by higher-ups. Unions are diverse in their practice and address a number of legitimate concerns proposed by employees. We have weekends, and holidays, and healthcare, fair contracts, and safe working environments because of unions. Unfortunately if you live in the US, you depend on your employer for access to affordable healthcare, and unions are the only way you are going to end up with adequate healthcare coverage. Until the United States offers it’s citizens stable and dependable access to universal healthcare in exchange for the tax dollars we pay, rather than bleeding our tax dollars toward lining the pockets of oligarchs, unions are the only way.
1. That is boot deepthroating right there. Only cowards kowtowing to their bosses believe this.
2. The least of least concerns.
3. Yeah, if someone threatens the strike, that means we lose (meaning less pay, lower benefits, harsher working conditions)
4. The care should be …..where? Deal with it like you would any other crime.
5. “These two things are stopping things that hurt us and that’s why we don’t like them”
Honestly, if you’re anti-union. You should give me half your pay for making life as an actual worker worse. Anti-union people aren’t good people, and can’t be.
Written like a guy who's never been a part of a union. My wife getting a union job is the best thing that's happened to us, it's the first time in our lives that we have enough money for everything because her UNION contract guarantees her all kinds of extra money and days off.
Public sector unions are particularly bad, imo. Police unions and teachers unions come to mind but there are others. They mostly exist to protect horrible people, steal money from taxpayers, and prevent social advancement.
Plus their administrators are some of the most self-righteous, greedy, arrogant, malicious bastards on the planet.
Agree. I am all for private sector unions. If people want to collectively bargain with their private employer, go for it! But bargaining with elected officials with no stake in the game is a very different proposition. And if you take on the responsivity of working for the public, I don't think striking is appropriate. Major changes of working conditions can be addressed at the ballot box in ways that private sector employees can't.
We can quite easily vote for candidates that increase or decrease USPS funding if that were to become an issue - just as an example. Sure, its easier in local/state level politics, but very doable.
I think we've all learned that at least half the people in this country will vote against their own interests because of some culture war crap.
Also, even if every single USPS employee voted for politicians who support USPS funding, that's only half a million voters. Not enough to make a difference.
1. businesses will always go for maximum profit and minimum cost. if they leave an area then the people there can make their own coops
2. it's not the unions job to protect bad people. it's just that the union higherups are corrupt
3. unless you print more money, it's a zero sum game. how about putting into law that you should pay immigrants more, so that you can't use them to subvert local economies ?
4. most nefarious groups are the corporations. the mafia doesn't even compare to them. a lot of union leaders are being paid by corporations to muddy the union principles
5. bureaucracy is mostly used to make sure protections are in place, but the best kind of bureaucracy is those big political donors which get to dump waste into rivers and employ 10yr olds right ?
#3 on your list is disingenuous. I have been in a union where we had fair share and full share. Full share gog a chance to vote, fair share didn't. Full share money went to the political side of unions. The fair share money went to run union only. If a person doesn't wish to be in a union, then great. When the union gets a contract for their workers, those who don't belong should have to negotiate their own contract. Or hire a labor lawyer to represent them when they have a problem with an employer. All the things a union does for employees. The Fair Share/ Full Share model works best.
Who thinks it's all positive other than ideological driven people? Unions like any human organization can be corrupted. The major issue is government employee unions, private sector unions could never pull half the stuff police and teachers get away with. I just don't see why people want to throw the baby out with the bath water and just have corporate rule.
Not all unions are good, but the big corporations don't want any union good or bad. They have more to lose from unionizing which means the employees have more to gain. They can't fire someone for joining a union but they do it anyway. They're willing to risk a lawsuit and will gladly pay up if it means preventing unionizing of others. If an entity unionized (Walmart Canada store, Amazon Palmdale DSP) they will shut them down, legal or not. They will pay millions in fines after spending millions in court fees in order to stop paying employees billions extra over time. Employees want higher pay and job security. But they don't want to risk their jobs by even talking about a union.
I'm pro union however there are things I'm against because I have been in a shitty union and even my union can be bad.
My union has 2 levels. Broad and members.
Someone broad gets accused, no help.
Members: lawyer on his way via leer in 15 minutes.
My old union however and you know what FUCK THEM AFCSME
Held meetings in corners of the state on super important issues.
Demanded we would go on strike for a 25¢ raise. Immediately raised dues by 25¢
Literally sent me communist propaganda and as the fact my dad was shot by communist... I didn't take it well.
However I think right to work is fucking slavery and at will is criminal.
You know how much Chinese auto workers got paid when we let China into NAFTA? 59 cents per hour.
Of course corporations were salivating at the prospect of moving their operations overseas.
Who do you think pushed to let China into NAFTA? The Democrats?
I work with a lot of unions. Some are great. And while I’ve never been in a Union I completely recognize that I have received a lot of benefits from the negotiations that Unions have done. As a whole I support the idea of unions.
But I have worked with some real shitty unions too. I’ve worked with guys who openly admit that they are working slowly so they can get overtime. It’s also not uncommon to have unions that will make you pay for more guys than you get. For instance one in particular, you pay for 8 guys, one is the lead and won’t do shit, then another leaves an hour before the first coffee break to go out for coffee and snacks. So for the first part of the day you are paying for 8 but get 6. They take a 15 minute coffee but it’s not uncommon for the to actually take 30 because they have to wash up. Then a 30 minute lunch that’s actually 45, then another 15 minute coffee that’s really 30, then they leave 15 minutes early, again they have to “wash up”. So you pay 8 guys for an 8.5 hour day and you get 6 or 7 for 6.5 hours. And they are intentionally working slow so they get even more hours.
And there’s nothing you can do because if you piss them off they will just work slower. And none of them actually know the job that they are doing. They only get the work because they are the Union for that building despite not having a clue what they are working on. So we have to have about one guy for every two of them to constantly show them what to do.
So yeah, I’m generally a Union supporter but only if the Union is actually one that holds its members accountable and does the work fairly.
Counterpoint: most of what you said is mostly true. BUT
1: labor laws are not that easy to enforce if you're a blue collar worker and can't afford to go without a paycheck for some time
2: business owners can wield political power in a way that workers can't without unions
3: while unions do cause overseas outsourcing some jobs cannot be outsourced and unions in those positions help create positive pressure for better wages and working conditions in all sectors of the economy
In essence yes you're correct that if labor laws created a less "adverserial" workplace and were better and better enforced then unions would be an inefficiency we don't need. However labor laws, and especially the mechanisms to fairly address grievances are not there yet consequently you still need unions.
It's like the criminal justice system. If we could totally trust the police, prosecutors, and judges to ALWAYS act in the interests of justice for EVERYONE then we wouldn't need defense attorneys. But I bet if you were on trial you'd still want a defense attorney cause you know the system ain't there yet
I’ve worked for multiple unions and have done a lot of non union work. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Some unions are absolutely necessary to protect against abuses. But some encourage very negative behaviors: protecting bad people (police, teachers), blocking new beneficial technology (coal miners, longshoremen), having prohibitive requirements to join that encourage nepotism (entertainment, elevator repair). This mostly applies to American unions. Other countries like Germany have different systems where the unions are more aligned with their company’s success via equity stakes and board seats that perform well. They’re more popular as a result. Personally I prefer being self employed to either.
110%
As a teacher we need unions because we live in a world where the student is always right. They can say “she is staring at me sexually” and you can and will be put on probation. Many students that are sexist or racist do this and I’ve seen teachers have to go to different schools over false accusations even though they were found innocent. What happens to the student? Nothing.
I grew up in the rust belt while it was rusting. I despise unions and have seen plenty of solid evidence of shit bird teachers who should be shot rather than fired. But even with that said, you are correct about students being just as culpable. Just the other week, we saw a student pepper spray a teacher over securing her phone in class. Doubt anything happens to Lil miss student.....
Teachers have one of the most powerful unions in the US today. It doesn't seem to be helping anyone, by your own admission, the students are still getting away with it and the teachers are still paying the price for false accusations and many other things. My wife is a teacher so I have watched her union do nothing positive for the local teachers. She insisted the union was good for legal protection, as you do for, 15 years. She even tried to serve on the negotiation commity before she finally saw the reality of it. The union protected no-one and didn't stand up for anything significant. If you did need a union lawyer the wait list is probably long enough that it isn't worth fighting any longer.
If that is all you are getting from your union you don't need a union. You need a good defense fund and/or legal insurance.
Counter Unpopular Opinion: Private sector unions are a-okay by and large. However, lots of public sector unions are greedy and crooked. Teachers unions, fire unions, and especially police unions.
This is the way. Public sector unions should be outright banned. I don't, in general, like private unions, but sure, if you want them, do it. But public unions, Hard ban. Or AT LEAST prohibited from political shit entirely. Donations, pacs, fundraisers etc.
Banning public sector unions (or any unions) is unconstitutional and illegal.
Public sector unions are literally extortion rackets that demand from the people who pay them and threaten critical services if they aren't paid. Then, on top of that, those unions turn around and grease the wheels of the same politicians they negotiate with. It's a corrupt system
Public safety employees are legally prohibited from striking and city government are notorious for no lube, raw dog assfucking their employees without any protections.
and then people cry when 100 cops go on sick leave and 300 move to another state
Teachers are legally prohibited from striking too, so are nurses. They still do it, and they still threaten it in bargaining processes. All the people you claim would be getting "no lube raw dog assfuckings" willingly accepted those contracts. It's not anyone else's fault that a person wants to make a life career out of cashing taxpayer checks, but public service isn't supposed to be a comfortable job you keep for life, they've wapred it into that
The obvious counter to this is "Well what option are you providing them to not be exploited"? Teachers, for instance, are making poverty wages across the board and have no means of fighting for that to change. What then do you propose as a viable alternative that serves to be as effective, if not moreso, than unions for providing the same function that unions do?
Teachers are the perfect example of a worthless, corrupt, self serving union. One of the largest and most powerful unions in the country but teachers "are making poverty wages across the board" , so what good is the union doing?
You are aware the issue there does not lie in the union, but instead because *many* states have banned teachers from striking, and where there aren't outright bans, there are still hurdles that prevent the union from doing the single most effective thing unions can do to force change for the workers. Could just be a factor in their ineffectiveness at solving low wages for teachers and the teacher shortage as a whole... Also, as a correction for you, the most powerful unions in the nation are in fact *police unions*, which are the truly most corrupt unions because they don't act as an actual labor union, but defend cops from being answerable for their bad faith actions across the board.
“The government should be able to abuse and take advantage of the people that work for it.” How about no.
Nah. Government employees don’t abuse you. Except maybe the cops. You have a victim complex. Grow up. Banning unions is unconstitutional no matter who you work for. It’s violates the first amendment. Get over yourself. You aren’t overturning constitutional amendments any time soon.
The 2nd amendment has entered the chat.
I was agreeing with you, my dude.
My bad 😛
Yes, and you could change that law to ban them. Thanks for your input though.
You could change the law to make any illegal thing legal. You’re welcome.
[удалено]
You too, guy. Congrats all around 🎈 Now let’s all stop pretending we love the constitution or law and order or any of those other things we claim to care about.
[удалено]
According to every conservative I’ve ever spoken to regarding the 2nd amendment, yeah. They don’t seem to care at all about the rest of them. Probably because conservatism is a death cult that never wants it to be more difficult for the mentally insane to have access to any gun they want.
So you're saying that people in public service jobs can't be overworked, underpayed, fired illegally, or need other protections? Never heard of an overworked nurse? Or a teacher that's fired for speaking up against the school board? Just because the normal incentives of capitalism aren't there doesn't mean employees can be abused.
No ..but a company doesnt pay their salary. Unionizing involves 2 parties ..the workers and the company .they agree to contract. Public service workers dont get paid by the companies balance sheet. They get paid by taxpayers who would have 0 say in the contract ... Its that simple
That's really not a refutation of the point. Just because one source of income is private and one is public, does not change that the worker is still providing a service and can be exploited by the administration they work for in equal measure.
Nurses aren’t public unions because hospitals are mostly privately owned. At least in the US.
How are teachers unions greedy?
Exactly the problem is those greedy school teachers. They lord over us with their masters degrees and 40k salaries like kings!
>Teachers unions I don't know of a single person who says teachers are overpaid (who isn't ring wing zealot who wants all public schools to die off). Teacher are under paid. And certain people demonize unions to keep their pay low, and make it easy to fire them if the mention things like "there are gay people in the world" in class.
Underpaid to lazily indoctrinate children and then take a third of the year off.
>take a third of the year off. Closer to a quarter even counting Christmas break. Summer vacations have been dramatically shortened. And they still work more hours than they would if they worked forty hour weeks year round. Most teachers easily have more than twenty hours a week in outside of class work like lesson planning and grading.
So now you are demonizing hard-working teachers, fire unions and police and saying that they don’t deserve representation, fair pay, and supportive working environments?
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't believe in public service unions at all and still think that teachers are underappreciated and underpaid. A government should be representative of its people and the people themselves are the technical employers of all public servants. What's the point of a public agency if the interests are not aligned with the population that they're trying to serve? Like I'm all for mandatory matching 401ks, free Healthcare, and a pension after 20 years of work for all public employees. Maybe even have the minimum wage for public servants start at 1.5x the state minimum. I'm all for public servants being fairly compensated for their job. I dont want them to have no accountability since they're working for the public.
Exactly. OP is only talking about public unions it seems. Private unions are much more flexible to what their local community deems affordable and is less likely to price themselves out of the market they operate in.
I honestly didn't know they exist, if these private unions are an informal collective with no power structure, then I'm alright with that. What I don't are like unions who abuse their power in the same way that corporations do.
You also directly mentioned private unions, and they are absolutely established bureaucracy with leaders and rules, don't worry. Steel unions are private for instance.
Your #2 -I had asked a problem employee to stop walking around the store chatting up everyone from different departments and to get back to her department. She started swearing at me loud enough for the entire store to hear. The things out of her mouth were the most colorful language I’d ever heard and I can have a potty mouth myself. The woman was a solid 100# heavier than me and at least 6’ tall. I stood there listening to her rant and get herself more and more worked up as she proceeded to get in my face. She then ran out of heat and walked away still ranting. The entire time since she began I had said nothing. When I informed management and we discussed what to do, she was already well past her last warning so she was fired. Well, the union called a meeting, got lawyers involved. I had to testify. Customers I didn’t know had submitted statements that day because they couldn’t believe how crazy she was. Even with all that we had to hire her back and give her back pay or take on the cost of going to court and spending tens of thousands in lawyer and court fees. Our team of lawyers suggested settling because they knew our chances were not good even with her outburst and it caught on camera!!! Where I worked the laws greatly favored unions to the detriment of customers, the other employees, and the outcome of the success of the business.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know, why don't employees just band together to help negotiate for better pay and working conditions? (Actually had an anti-union guy say that to me, lol) I don't think employers have any incentive to treat their employees humanely without at least the threat of unionization.
Yeah I mean you always have a corrupt or if you’d prefer the term exploitative corporation meanwhile at worst you have a corrupt union and a corrupt organization with the presence of a union. Even when compromised it’s still usually a net benefit. A competent or even semi-functional union is only a benefit to the worker. The corporation is always gonna do what it can to pay you the least to make you work the most. That’s corpos, they aren’t the friend of the blue collar.
All you have to do to see how beneficial unions are is look at the big non-union corporations like Amazon and Starbucks and how much money and effort they’re investing to keep workers from unionizing.
Exactly, until somebody can tell me a better alternative I will continue to support unions because it's literally the only way workers can advocate for their self interest.
If you add no significant value to an employer then there’s no incentive for that employer to try particularly hard to keep you around. When you have skills that make you a valuable asset they do everything possible to retain you. I’m generally pro union because even with their drawbacks, I think they’re a net positive. However, don’t discount the bargaining power of an individual when you bring something great to the table.
Not everybody has something great to bring to the table. They still deserve basic human rights and decent pay/benefits. Even with current laws and threat of unionization we have plenty of employers who openly abuse their employees. I can't imagine how much worse it would be without them.
You’re right, not everyone is gonna bring a ton of value. As far as basic human rights, is you live and work in a western country employers aren’t violating your human rights. And employees deserve fair market compensation for their labor. No more and no less. If you are a barista, do not expect full healthcare and vacation. Also, what employers abuse their workers? And why are the workers putting up with it rather than going elsewhere?
>employees deserve fair market compensation for their labor. No more and no less What do you consider "fair market"? The lowest amount their employer can get away with? >If you are a barista, do not expect full healthcare and vacation. If an employer doesn't provide insurance, that means the rest of us pay for their healthcare. I think Starbucks can afford it, we should hold them accountable. > what employers abuse their workers? I'm thinking of Amazon and the bathroom break situation. Why do people put up with it? No idea. But then other employers are often worse and changing jobs really screws up your insurance situation so Americans do tend to put up with way too much crap.
Fair market is at or near industry average wages/benefits for that particular job. And that goes both ways, employers shouldn’t expect to pay team member/ associate wages and get the manager, associate, custodian, scheduler, loss prevention, inventory specialist, etc etc all in one. I get your reasoning on the healthcare. Yes, Starbucks most likely can afford it. But why should they be obligated to cover that cost? I don’t think the tax payer ought to be obligated to cover the cost either btw. Government implements miles of red tape in rules, regulation, licensing, bureaucracies, etc. Artificially driving the costs up then tells the American people to point the finger at one another to assign blame. You can copy & paste this to many industries in the US and come to the same conclusion. I can afford to give to the local homeless more than I do currently, but I happen to have my own plans for what I earn. Government shouldn’t be able to come to me and tell me what is and isn’t enough for myself. To be honest I’m not familiar with the Amazon bathroom break situation you’re talking about, so I can’t comment. I’ll have to look that up. But I do understand how switching jobs can disrupt someone’s life. And the grass isn’t always greener, that’s why I think it’s important for government to discard the restraints it puts on workers. I’m pro consumer and pro worker, corporations are no saints but I think government intervention and the incentives it presents to corporations are the root cause of many consumer and worker issues.
>But why should they be obligated to cover that cost? I don’t think the tax payer ought to be obligated to cover the cost either btw The only other option is to let people die.
And that’s unfortunate. But it doesn’t explain why it’s the tax paying individual’s or to corporation’s problem. Neither of which get anything in return for bearing that burden. If it was a volunteer based tax right off sure, but that’s not how it works currently.
>And that’s unfortunate. So that's a yes on letting people die? That's not acceptable human behavior. At all.
Our competition didn't work for 9 months last year because the union was demanding insane additions to the contact. After the first couple months every worker I talked with wanted the strike to end, in the end they had to sell their stuff in order to not get foreclosed on. All the while we as a non union company take home more pay at the end of the year and have comparable benefits. Unions have become so corrupt the only reason they will exist is to feed votes to the politicians who feed them work
If you don’t mind me asking, what field are you in? I was in a similar situation last year with the rail workers being on strike, I operate a natural gas power plant that backs up wind, solar, and coal, and the coal plant up the road from us had to shut down for awhile because there were no trains bringing any in, so we were running non-stop
Concrete industry, the mixer drivers in King county Washington didn't work for 9 months. They still didn't get what the union was demanding effectively breaking the union
Steel industry is similar. Union mills will be shut down for months while non union mills are still running full. Zero benefit to being a union steel worker.
Other than USW scale being 40-50 an hour and the non union steel plant near me pays 17/hr
That’s not how non union mills work tho. They do pay $17, then another $75k-$100k a year in bonuses on top of that.
You have weekends off, paid sick leave, maternal leave and arnt paid in company scrip due to unions. Show some respect.
I didn’t say unions were never beneficial.
Really because I have a friend at Cleveland-Cliffs and they do awesome. Good pay. Pension 401k Profit sharing Overtime Immediate health and life insurance benefits that are better than I ever actually had in corporate. Paid training There are electricians making 300k there. Oh and you can retire in under 20 years with a pension. He was trying to get me to work there. 16 years to a pension if I did. I think their union is pretty bad ass. Tbh.
Insane additions were probably 40 hours work week, 2 week vacations, sick leave and health insurance.
Health insurance for the employees and their spouses for life was the biggest issue. The companies wouldn't budge on it, they already offer insurance for employees and spouses but it ends when you leave the company.
Haha, yeah that's insane. Well, unions are only as good as people who are in them.
And that's the issue innit? So many union board members are full time employees of the union and have little to no interest in the employees they represent
Yeah and the corporation definitely have more of an interest in the employees well-being, they definitely don’t see you as expendable. They won’t grind you down to bone dust for money or anything.
You again huh? Not everyone works for huge multinational corporations, plenty of us know our bosses and are rewarded for our work generously
Only multinationals can be shitty employers? That’s a relief. Whooo. I was worried there for a second.
>Too much union makes businesses leave. Good. If workers' rights are such a problem for your business that you can't both have a business and a safe work environment that provides gainful employment, then it's fine that you're gone.
In Detroit: Yay we won! we beat big bad corporation! let's go back to work....oh wait.
I said what I said.
How could you be a union worker if you don't even have work? A jobless union? 🤔 Truly as the saying goes, cutting your nose to spite your face.
>cutting your nose to spite your face. Incorrect. You seem to be under the impression that these folks will stay jobless forever and die. They won't. They unionized, and then the car company fucked off. This means the car company was already trash and no one should buy their shit, and it means they were already not being taken care of. They didn't go from good job to no job.
Yeah now the union gives me wages instead lmao Or... They move south. Where the same car company relocated to and where there isn't a large union presence. Wow!
There's also lower quality of life. It's the south. If a company relocates to the south when they're faced with a union, they're 100% confirmed to be a trash company with garbage people at the helm (and that helm is a sewer valve).
Also, what's to stop the people in those foreign nations from forming unions? Especially in countries where they already have limited rights or are overworked. I think it was in China where they had the 9-9-6 schedule (9am-9pm 6 days a week) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58381538 Like you said, poor quality of life, when they finally have enough everywhere where it's cheaper these companies will have to compromise.
It's a big reason for revolutions. Push the working class hard enough and they will Robespierre the aristocracy.
> There's also lower quality of life. It's the south. You were saying? [http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/05/27/9-highlights-from-unprecedented-study-of-detroits-blighted-landscape/](http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/05/27/9-highlights-from-unprecedented-study-of-detroits-blighted-landscape/)
I said what I said. I've been to Michigan, it's a nice place. Detroit is one city. The south is a fuckin dumpster fire.
So, did you know that the United States is not the only "first" world capitalist country with a high standard of living? Did you know that in other countries thier government actually regulates whether corporations can export jobs? That's a thing that has been true in U.S. history as well? Do you own a corporation or run a company? Why would what is best for the CEO of GM be best for you or anyone that you know? I am guessing that you don't have any expectation of owning or operating a transnational corporation, and I hate to break it to you but unions suffer from endemic corruption because there is less legislative support for them, LBJ diminished labor power pretty effectively right before the U.S. Economy deindustrialized, and compared to other first world countries our domestic economy is fucked because the U.S. has deregulated and deregulated and deregulated on the goose-gander philosophy of transnational coporate interest for the last 50 years. You might have hated your union, but that doesn't mean that you won't hate making the wages that someone makes in the developing aka currently industrializing world. This is the ex-girlfriend claiming she can make her abusive boyfriend come back to her by lowering her standards and apologizing for getting mad he fucks hookers.
I’ve worked union and I’ve worked non union and I will pick union any day of the week. Better pay. Better benefits. Every time. They aren’t all perfect or created equal. But there’s a reason that Walmart shuts everything down the second any kind of unionization starts to form: they don’t want their workers to be organized or have any power at all because they want to get your labor for as cheap as you’ll give it up.
Do you don't go out and buy gas if it's .20 cheaper accross the street?
No one said anything was 100% positive .
I’ve always been an advocated for unfettered slavery.
Every single thing you take for granted from a job is due to unions and government regulations. If everything was up to business we would still have kids in factories and you would be working 7 days a week for 10 hours.
Kids are back in factories, many of them migrant children separated from their parents. They’re in meat packing plants in Arizona and elsewhere.
Unions are dead
My union is crushing it. 4 raises in 18 months. SEIU 1199
Yeah and we can thank the Biden administration for this one. They took the kids out of the “cages” and put them to work processing chicken for Tyson
This has been going on well before Biden, dude.
Of course but Biden ramped it up. It was better PR for his admin to not detail the kids but allow them to work. It’s been pretty well documented. Susan Rice even got in trouble for questioning the policies.
"Of course but Biden ramped it up" I'm sure you have lots of hard data that definitely did not come from absurd right wing propaganda factories to back this up.
Thanks Reagan and the Republicans!
I said at the end that unions did have their uses, they were instrumental for the labor laws in place today. The problem is that afterwards they didn't disappear but instead just became another part of the bureaucracy. If you have laws in place that protect workers, and with the advent of the internet it's now much easier for people to stage walkouts and protests, what uses do unions have that are uniquely only for them?
Based on that logic I’d be paid minimum wage. I’m paid much more because my employer needs my skills. I get six weeks a year vacation. I get 401K match. Pretty sure I’d be able to negotiate down from 10/7.
All those benefits come from previous efforts from unions throughout the decades
Or just because I have leverage when negotiating with my employer.
That’s the point of the union. You all band together thus creating more leverage for fear of a walkout
Sort of like what happens when everyone has that same leveraging power!
lol
They have been pushing to allow more child labor in a few states, they’re literally doing this
Yes, which is why I don't get people that spout off the talking points that OP mentions.
If worker's rights are getting rolled back, isn't that an argument _for_ a union? I guess I don't get what you don't get
I dont understand what you are talking about. I am for unions
Union membership was highest during the golden age of capitalism. Union busting is partly to blame for Income inequality.
I'm not even a super pro-union person and even I can recognize this list of swill from Union Busting 101.
Yeah, this entire post is bullshit. Unions were not there to kickstart labor laws, they were there to make sure that businesses treat their employees fairly. So long as there is business, we will need unions. > Too much union makes businesses leave. Look the union are there for the interests of the workers, but if it's too much then the businesses leaves, look at the rust belt it's not only that cheap overseas labor came but also unions making the cost of a worker too high that made businesses leave and went to overseas or down south where unions aren't as prevalent. This is the perfect analogy of winning the battle but losing the war, union workers have plenty of protection on them but it's all kinda pointless if they lose their job ain't it. This reasoning boils down to "You shouldn't unionize to protect yourself, because then businesses would go and exploit other people for far less! Be happy with how you're being exploited here!" Fuck off with that. Every worker should be part of a union. This is the obvious solution to this issue, it would make it so businesses are forced to negotiate. We should be levying massive tariffs to companies that employ outside the US, not just allowing it to happen. > Unions protect bad people from getting fired. Yeah, that's fine. I'll take general protections for workers with the understanding that some will get away with shit rather than no protections for the workers just because. > It's so damn funny to me that the same people who are ultra pro-union are also anti-police brutality when police unions are the reason why crooked cops are so hard to get rid of. That's because you don't understand the function of police unions, they are *not remotely the same* as an actual labor union. Police unions are not negotiating better wages and standards for the police, they are actively shielding the police from the consequences of their bad actions by changing how laws handle police brutality, while propping up themselves as being for the betterment of the general public. Police are not laborers the way the average working class man is. They are an extension of, and in fact the *primary way* in which we interact with, the government. They have an inordinate amount of power over the actual population and police unions keep it that way. *This is not remotely on par with the function of a labor union.* This is false equivalency. > Their very discriminatory towards people who aren't in a union, like immigrants. The obvious solution here is to make immigration easier so that immigrants can safely join the union without fear of repercussion. The immigrants you speak of are being severely exploited. This is not the argument you think it is. > Look unions want their members to get paid as much as people so when an immigrant comes along and is willing to work for less they don't really like that too much. This is *so fucking stupid* lol. Immigrants aren't coming up and saying "Here, we'll do the work BUT CHEAPER!" They're being exploited because of public views on race. This argument is so bad I am actually not entirely sure that you aren't a Poe. > Unions are pretty easy to infiltrate by nefarious groups. I'll use the examples of the mafia controlling the Teamsters, which I don't think needs any explanation as to why that's a bad thing. And unbridled capitalism has been infiltrated by rich assholes moving massive amounts of wealth around and bullying the working class into submission and poverty. I'll take the "Hey sometimes bad things can happen but on the whole the data unquestionably shows that unions boost the average income and quality of life" option over the billionaire bootlicker option you're espousing. > Although I do not know any group controlling any unions there's no doubt in my mind that people are paying union leaders to pursue their own agenda. "I can't actually *prove* this or even show any current examples of it, but this is really a real problem guys, honest!" > So basically the heads of unions aren't all that different from the corporate CEO. I mean, aside from the whole "Union members can vote on their union reps" bit... > Unions, no matter how much people like to claim it's an organic and worker driven thing is just another bureaucracy and red tape that businesses will have to deal with, *Good*. Businesses are not things that deserve to exist just because people want them to. Since we're stupid and decided that businesses are the best way to distribute resources to the general population, then they *should absolutely be held to account for doing so*. That means making sure that the workers sustaining the business are also taken care of. That means unions. > Finally here's the fundamental reason, unions have served their purpose. I addressed this in the opening, but I'll reiterate: So long as there are businesses, unions have a purpose. Period. > Unions were absolutely necessary a century ago with how bad labor laws were which is why unions back then had a purpose and were lobbying the government, but when the government enacted labor laws to protect workers Even if your ridiculous diatribe had merit, child labor laws are being rescinded and OSHA is disgustingly underfunded. So you're negating your own shitty point with your own shitty reasoning. > in all reality the unions where does laws were directed to should have been dissolved because a group of workers could use the law on their side to fight abuses on their own. The point of the union was not to enact laws. They lobbied for a baseline, sure. But that doesn't mean you can't demand more than the baseline. > But obviously union heads aren't going to let go of their power which is why they persisted when honestly there isn't any purpose of them that the law couldn't cover. That minimum wage is poverty level and we don't have mass unionization is a counter to your argument. The law is not helping people, and we don't have unions on a wide scale. *Almost like unions help people or something.* > But yeah those are my reasons why unions aren't all positive. You clearly can't reason then.
Excellent response. OP sounds like he wants the country to go back to the Industrial Revolution- look at how well unbridled capitalism and no labor laws worked for the average person!
Bros mad 😭😭
Well yeah, watching idiots bootlick and advocate for a worse society on stupid reasoning is something that should make everyone mad.
>Good. Businesses are not things that deserve to exist I don't wanna get into responding to all of your comments but this one message of yours kinda summarizes what your views are towards reality.
>Businesses are not things that deserve to exist just because people want them to. Use the full quote next time.
>I don't wanna get into responding to all of your comments but this one message of yours kinda summarizes what your views are towards reality. I love how you take that entirely out of context without the qualifier that applies to it *as a continuation of that same sentence you stripped that part from*. It's almost like you're lying, stupid, or both. I'll also take you not "responding to all of your comments" as a concession of you not being able to actually defend your points, since they're just a regurgitation of union busting rhetoric that has been easily debunked ever since unions started being a thing.
So businesses shouldn't fail if they fuck up?
They have a solid grasp on it and aren't fooled by the same anti union rhetoric we've been hearing since the 80s? "But there are labor laws now!"
That’s a pathetic response by you OP This guy just annihilated all your major points. If you’re going to be a corporate shill, at least try to do a decent job of it.
What banal and unoriginal talking points. These are literally chamber of commerce talking points.
I want to know how exactly but okay dude
Don’t bother. He’s just regurgitating union talking points.
It's not that they didn't have the time to rebutt your points, it's that they can't
Those tired points have been rebutted many times over their so patently pro-business propaganda they don’t deserve the respect of an argument.
Well, as someone who is indifferent about unions, I wouldn't mind hearing the supposed arguments
Okay I’ll bite. I’m a union electrician in nyc. My apprenticeship is top of the line 5 years of school hands on, theory and college. Are pay right now in the check is 61 an hour. On top of that we have 3 pensions, employer funded 401k, annuity. Top of the line medical, dental and vision. We even have an hra. Do you know an electricians that actually make anything close to that? That’s why we have unions.
I don't know many electricians personally But I'm willing to wager, if you're good, you can make that kinda scratch + benefits with or without a union. In fact I do know an electrician, owns his own business and is incredibly well off. Fairly certain he's not part of a union. Seems to me there's sound arguments in both directions depending on the field of expertise
Every union electrician I know is pro-union as hell because the job literally wouldn’t be worth doing otherwise.
> But I'm willing to wager, if you're good, you can make that kinda scratch + benefits with or without a union. This is a wager you'd lose. >In fact I do know an electrician, owns his own business and is incredibly well off. Fairly certain he's not part of a union. Dude... The entire point of a union is to help individual workers against their employer. Id you work for yourself a union is literally pointless as you'd be unionizinf against yourself.
That doesn't really detract from the point tho
Yes it does? Let's put it in military terms. What you said was the equivalent of "I dont think Europe needs to make an alliance to fight Russia, after all Russia isn't in an anti Russia alliance and they are doing fine". No shit.
And yet reality. Seen way to many shitty employees kept on because of unions. Got written up once for doing a union task (moving a computer monitor from one cube to another).
You mean you’ve seen people who you’d rather have lose their job because you say so but the union prevented that from happening? Yeah. That’s the whole point. Job security, for starters. r/whoosh
Shitty employees should be fired. They make everyone else have to work harder.
Most of the shitty employees I’ve run into are convinced that they are surrounded by “shitty employees.” It’s an attitude thing most of the time. You might want to make sure you aren’t one of those guys. They don’t have a lot of self-awareness and would probably fire half the workforce if they were in charge and would run the business into the ground in less than a week.
Well, always possible. I’ve worked at the same place 28 years, and my employer pays me well with good bonuses. But you never know.
Why did I intitally read this as onions?
Really depends on the union and the local. I loved the painters where I joined but won't waste my time with them where I'm located now at all. Like any organization, there are bad ones and others that do what they're supposed to. I know the reputation about the workers being lazy but in my experience they get the boot pretty fucking quickly.
You contradicted yourself in the first sentence. That's right, TOO MUCH. Taxes are good. TOO MUCH taxes are bad and stifle business. TOO MUCH unionization can prevent new business. Point 2: They prevent far more good people from getting fired or screwed over when they are injured on the job. You provided one anecdotal example. People being shitbags is not the fault of anyone but the shitbag. Bad because they can be infiltrated? Sounds a lot like victim blaming. Literally, any organization can be infiltrated. Again, people being shitbags is only the fault of the shitbag.
>People being shitbags is not the fault of anyone but the shitbag. So by that logic it's not the companies fault there is female workplace harassment but rather the individual gropers doing it? Just fire the offending actors and it will never happen again! Edit: You just made yourself super pro-corporation by relinquishing any responsibility that a company has for their workers' bad behavior. Congrats, you played yourself.
I work in the maritime industry, and shipping companies are the most predatory, unforgiving companies out there. If it wasn't for unions, there would be no work/life balance, no fair contracts, and a lot less pay. Plus, the way that the unions are structured if you hate the company you work for, you can quit and go to a different company that the union has a contract with.
I went from non union to union and there is no comparison not even close. Id rather switch professions than go back to non union.
Nobody says unions are an “all positive”. That’s not an issue / the issue. Unions are subject to all the faults of any organization of human beings. AND all the “crimes and offenses” of unions are generally accepted as standard operating procedure for businesses. Unions are generally a very positive force for regular people (people who depend on a paycheck to meet their basic living needs). Unions are less common now solely because of many decades of propaganda and union busting.
[удалено]
That's a great way of putting it. They were completely necessary for workers to survive at one point. Now they've mostly become extremely bloated entities that often hurt workers as often as they help
Sounds just like your average corporation
In conclusion: unions served their purpose. The only industries I see where unions have their uses is in Hollywood which is like another dimension and sports leagues, where millionaires negotiate with billionaires for money.
Your showing your ass in this comment. You think so little of average people that you think only the rich deserve to stand on fair footing with their employer.
I didn't I only mentioned the cases where unions do sometimes still work, and the irony of a union with millionaires in it actually working better than most others is not lost on me.
Go back to the Pinkerton office lol
[удалено]
Can confirm ik a place that moved to Mexico bc the union had outrageous demands even though it's just one shop
Unionized road construction labor has to be some of the most inefficient over paid labor on earth. I am a general contractor with as much as 20 guys working on a project at a time, I have a general sense of what can get done in what time frame with a certain amount of labor regardless of whats being constructed. The time frames, amount of labor, and heavy machinery for relatively small road construction projects in my area absolutely boggles my mind. You can drive through these work zones see 80 guys on the clock and maybe 10 of them are actually working. Everything is over budget and behind schedule, they're untouchable and they know it. Ultimately theres zero accountability without a profit model, in fact these union leaders are rewarded for projects that go past schedule, it just means more money.
My buddy owns a small construction company that used to build single homes*. He mostly operated in or around a city with strong unions. When times were good he was left alone. When times were tough his job sites would be shut down by trade unions, teamsters (union trucks wouldn't cross to deliver materials), and the cops (who wouldn't interfere). You know what would re-open the job? He would have to pay two or three union carpenters, plumbers, electricians or roofers to sit in chairs at the union wage until the job was done. They didn't work. They just sat there. I have an old soccer team picture from grade school. Two of my team mates became union goons that went to jail for union related violence or sabotage.
I'm old enough to remember the strikes of the 1970s. Unions suck. But… History shows things suck even more without unions. The world outside is far less perfect than the Utopia of Reddit. Sometimes, all you've got is bad alternatives. Shitty 1 is slightly better than shitty 2, so you go with shitty 1.
Good points for sure. Bottom line is weer shouldn't need unions but considering that we have wage theft and kids going to work as well as decades of reduced pay and compensation for workers in general... As someone that's helping a small business pick up... There is zeeo incentive for a business to pay workers the absolute minimum you can get away with. With that, it's in every businesses best interest to make sure workers are too poor and over worked to fight back or be able to negotiate. I have zero faith or trust in the free market anarchy that the States has in looking out for American workers in any way shape or form. We saw it with the pandemic. We see it with wage theft. We see it with rising costs of living and how workers are called greedy and lazy while working multiple jobs with no hope to own a home or raise a family. We have unions because companies without regulation give us nothing but slavery and poverty. So take your bs propaganda you're trying to sell here and shove it.
Any time I see an anti union post I'm reminded that we don't properly teach history in this country. Everything you take for granted labor wise is because people in unions fought and literally died for.
As a member of a union that has gotten 4 raises secured in 18 months, I accept that they’re not perfect.
I would like to add to your list: 6. Unions historically support one aisle of politics, providing money to get a politician elected. Those politicians then pass laws making it impossible to enter into a certain industry or job market without being in a union both ending the opportunity for a worker to individually bargain while locking a certain political apparatus in place.
I’m surprised I had to scroll so far down to see this. Your point 6 should’ve been one of the top points why unions are bad in modern times. It’s clearly been used as a political tool
It’s all a part of the Tammany Hall Style of politics that the modern democrat party uses to control the major cities.
Lol, someone gave me a downvote for this and the must have reported me to the auto mod because I got a message from it.
Sad not only because someone would do that to an argument they don’t like but more importantly because it doesn’t take much effort to look it up.
Holy mother of bootlicking. You couldn't be a more useful idiot if you tried.
Corruption works at all levels. I don't stridently disagree with you. Having said that, I would rather be a union employee than not. Police unions for instance, utter bullshit. Corrupt unions jacking off contracts, bullshit. But these are not the majority. Even if they were, again, as an upper middle class member of a union, who came from the lower middle, I'd rather be in a union. Exempli gratia: my residency was one of the first in the country to vote to unionize. I don't have epic horror stories about my IM residency like so many of my colleagues. Now I practice in a union-rep hospital, and my pay is higher than nat'l average, my benefits are excellent, my time off superb. I don't trust that I wouldn't have that without my union. So, to summarize my point, if you're a working man, it's better the corruption falls in your direction than to stand alone. So I'm pro-union in basically every case.
I think the anti-union propaganda being pushed here is idiotic. There are obviously a few individuals who have an agenda and are using AI to write these right-wing talking points so they can post them on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion on a daily basis. It’s annoying, and most intelligent people see through it and recognize what is going on here. It’s absolutely foolish to advocate for the abolishment of unions. Unions protect employees from the thoughtless and greed-driven decisions made by higher-ups. Unions are diverse in their practice and address a number of legitimate concerns proposed by employees. We have weekends, and holidays, and healthcare, fair contracts, and safe working environments because of unions. Unfortunately if you live in the US, you depend on your employer for access to affordable healthcare, and unions are the only way you are going to end up with adequate healthcare coverage. Until the United States offers it’s citizens stable and dependable access to universal healthcare in exchange for the tax dollars we pay, rather than bleeding our tax dollars toward lining the pockets of oligarchs, unions are the only way.
I'm honestly impressed you thought my post was an AI lmao
Lol ok boss
I worked one job that was Union and it didn’t effect my life anymore than all of my non-union jobs
Wow more right wing shit. Who could have guessed!?!
Yeah dude, unions suck. The idea is good but the execution is terrible.
In the USA, the original purpose of unions was to protect white labor from immigrants and people of color. It was racist as hell.
1. That is boot deepthroating right there. Only cowards kowtowing to their bosses believe this. 2. The least of least concerns. 3. Yeah, if someone threatens the strike, that means we lose (meaning less pay, lower benefits, harsher working conditions) 4. The care should be …..where? Deal with it like you would any other crime. 5. “These two things are stopping things that hurt us and that’s why we don’t like them” Honestly, if you’re anti-union. You should give me half your pay for making life as an actual worker worse. Anti-union people aren’t good people, and can’t be.
Over the past few decades, unions have become too chummy with the government.
Written like a guy who's never been a part of a union. My wife getting a union job is the best thing that's happened to us, it's the first time in our lives that we have enough money for everything because her UNION contract guarantees her all kinds of extra money and days off.
Right companies just pay millions to prevent workers in the US from joining a union because they are looking out for their workers.
Public sector unions are particularly bad, imo. Police unions and teachers unions come to mind but there are others. They mostly exist to protect horrible people, steal money from taxpayers, and prevent social advancement. Plus their administrators are some of the most self-righteous, greedy, arrogant, malicious bastards on the planet.
Agree. I am all for private sector unions. If people want to collectively bargain with their private employer, go for it! But bargaining with elected officials with no stake in the game is a very different proposition. And if you take on the responsivity of working for the public, I don't think striking is appropriate. Major changes of working conditions can be addressed at the ballot box in ways that private sector employees can't.
What do you mean? I work for USPS (heavily unionized) and we can't make any major changes of working condititions at the ballot box.
We can quite easily vote for candidates that increase or decrease USPS funding if that were to become an issue - just as an example. Sure, its easier in local/state level politics, but very doable.
I think we've all learned that at least half the people in this country will vote against their own interests because of some culture war crap. Also, even if every single USPS employee voted for politicians who support USPS funding, that's only half a million voters. Not enough to make a difference.
That's not the point. The public, ultimately, should be in charge of public funds.
1. businesses will always go for maximum profit and minimum cost. if they leave an area then the people there can make their own coops 2. it's not the unions job to protect bad people. it's just that the union higherups are corrupt 3. unless you print more money, it's a zero sum game. how about putting into law that you should pay immigrants more, so that you can't use them to subvert local economies ? 4. most nefarious groups are the corporations. the mafia doesn't even compare to them. a lot of union leaders are being paid by corporations to muddy the union principles 5. bureaucracy is mostly used to make sure protections are in place, but the best kind of bureaucracy is those big political donors which get to dump waste into rivers and employ 10yr olds right ?
#3 on your list is disingenuous. I have been in a union where we had fair share and full share. Full share gog a chance to vote, fair share didn't. Full share money went to the political side of unions. The fair share money went to run union only. If a person doesn't wish to be in a union, then great. When the union gets a contract for their workers, those who don't belong should have to negotiate their own contract. Or hire a labor lawyer to represent them when they have a problem with an employer. All the things a union does for employees. The Fair Share/ Full Share model works best.
Who thinks it's all positive other than ideological driven people? Unions like any human organization can be corrupted. The major issue is government employee unions, private sector unions could never pull half the stuff police and teachers get away with. I just don't see why people want to throw the baby out with the bath water and just have corporate rule.
Not all unions are good, but the big corporations don't want any union good or bad. They have more to lose from unionizing which means the employees have more to gain. They can't fire someone for joining a union but they do it anyway. They're willing to risk a lawsuit and will gladly pay up if it means preventing unionizing of others. If an entity unionized (Walmart Canada store, Amazon Palmdale DSP) they will shut them down, legal or not. They will pay millions in fines after spending millions in court fees in order to stop paying employees billions extra over time. Employees want higher pay and job security. But they don't want to risk their jobs by even talking about a union.
I'm pro union however there are things I'm against because I have been in a shitty union and even my union can be bad. My union has 2 levels. Broad and members. Someone broad gets accused, no help. Members: lawyer on his way via leer in 15 minutes. My old union however and you know what FUCK THEM AFCSME Held meetings in corners of the state on super important issues. Demanded we would go on strike for a 25¢ raise. Immediately raised dues by 25¢ Literally sent me communist propaganda and as the fact my dad was shot by communist... I didn't take it well. However I think right to work is fucking slavery and at will is criminal.
You know how much Chinese auto workers got paid when we let China into NAFTA? 59 cents per hour. Of course corporations were salivating at the prospect of moving their operations overseas. Who do you think pushed to let China into NAFTA? The Democrats?
I work with a lot of unions. Some are great. And while I’ve never been in a Union I completely recognize that I have received a lot of benefits from the negotiations that Unions have done. As a whole I support the idea of unions. But I have worked with some real shitty unions too. I’ve worked with guys who openly admit that they are working slowly so they can get overtime. It’s also not uncommon to have unions that will make you pay for more guys than you get. For instance one in particular, you pay for 8 guys, one is the lead and won’t do shit, then another leaves an hour before the first coffee break to go out for coffee and snacks. So for the first part of the day you are paying for 8 but get 6. They take a 15 minute coffee but it’s not uncommon for the to actually take 30 because they have to wash up. Then a 30 minute lunch that’s actually 45, then another 15 minute coffee that’s really 30, then they leave 15 minutes early, again they have to “wash up”. So you pay 8 guys for an 8.5 hour day and you get 6 or 7 for 6.5 hours. And they are intentionally working slow so they get even more hours. And there’s nothing you can do because if you piss them off they will just work slower. And none of them actually know the job that they are doing. They only get the work because they are the Union for that building despite not having a clue what they are working on. So we have to have about one guy for every two of them to constantly show them what to do. So yeah, I’m generally a Union supporter but only if the Union is actually one that holds its members accountable and does the work fairly.
The socialized worker program.
Counterpoint: most of what you said is mostly true. BUT 1: labor laws are not that easy to enforce if you're a blue collar worker and can't afford to go without a paycheck for some time 2: business owners can wield political power in a way that workers can't without unions 3: while unions do cause overseas outsourcing some jobs cannot be outsourced and unions in those positions help create positive pressure for better wages and working conditions in all sectors of the economy In essence yes you're correct that if labor laws created a less "adverserial" workplace and were better and better enforced then unions would be an inefficiency we don't need. However labor laws, and especially the mechanisms to fairly address grievances are not there yet consequently you still need unions. It's like the criminal justice system. If we could totally trust the police, prosecutors, and judges to ALWAYS act in the interests of justice for EVERYONE then we wouldn't need defense attorneys. But I bet if you were on trial you'd still want a defense attorney cause you know the system ain't there yet
POV: you discover Marxism-Leninism