Should all jobs be union jobs?

[Taverner]

Yes. Yes they should.

If you think the Koch Brothers don't have their "unions" you'd be wrong.

They organize and collectively decide workers' fate.

All workers should collectively bargain.

There is no reason to do otherwise.

[Lugnut]

1. Yes. n/t

[DemocraticWing]

2. Yes.

It's the only way to ensure a fair economy that works for the 99% and not the elites.

[PETRUS]

3. I'd call that a start. nt

[Enthusiast]

19. Yes, that would be a start.

Then we could use the unions to help us restore democracy and rein in corporate power.

[socialist_n_TN]

54. I agree with you two........

That would be a START. Then you would need a true worker's political party to represent worker's POLITICAL interests. After that......

[TBF]

122. After that we transition to socialism ...

so the Koch Bros. (and the other billionaires) don't use their money to beat down our unions and drive us back to square one.

[Taverner]

167. My plan

Corporatocracy (now) ->> Social Democracy

Government buys up publicaly held companies, and handing them to the workers as worker owned collectives.

Social Democracy ->> Socialism

As private companies die off, companies are owned by the workers, hence, Socialism

[Enthusiast]

182. I'm not advocating anything so radical.

I just believe the working man deserves a fair shake. The start of a fair shake would be slapping down this TPP bullshit.

[Taverner]

183. Well hell, if my plan actually was enacted, we'd be talking several generations

Not so much into Great Leap Forwards or Five Year Plans

[Adrahil]

226. How is a new company started in your model?

I'm curious... Say I have a good idea. I want to make a really cool new widget. How do I go into business and build my widget and sell it to anyone who wants one?

[Taverner]

232. Sub-syndicate, and then if it takes off, split off...

A bit easier than visiting VCs - -

[Adrahil]

234. Could you elaborate?

Sounds interesting, and I'm all for figuring out a way to cut out the VCs.

[Taverner]

236. Syndicate A makes widgets

Worker/Owner of Syndicate A comes up with a brilliant idea for a new widget

He runs the idea by the collective, and they decide if, where, how and who goes to the new project. A sub-syndicate is formed and they go to work developing the new widget. If the new widget works and is a success, the sub-syndicate can stay a sub-syndicate or if the syndicate agrees, can split off. Also, if the new widget isn't a success, but the sub syndicate beleives it needs more time - and the rest of the syndicate agrees, they can split off.

[Adrahil]

237. What if I don't work for Syndicate A?

What if my idea is completely new or completely Unrelated to the business I am in?

What if the "collective" doesn't like my idea, but I still think its a good idea? Would still be able to seek funding on my own (or even use my own money) to produce my widget?

The reason I ask is pretty straight forward. My current company makes a device that has proven successful. But we were unable to convince a significant number of people our idea was good at our old company. A few of us had enough faith in the idea to go off and form our own company, and build it. I want to be able to do that. I want to be able to have faith in my idea and pursue it, even if some collective doesn't think it will work.

[Taverner]

238. Well, considering the Syndicates are unionized and connected....

It would be a matter of developing a relationship with Syndicate B, or Syndicate C which makes a similar product

Or, Syndicate A could be talked into changing their charter

Lots of ways to skin that hypothetical cat

[Adrahil]

239. Hmmmm.... I'd don't like...

The idea that I must be dependent on convincing some existing syndicate to undertake my idea. Although I want to avoid any kind of dependency on venture capital, any alternative system must preserve the freedom to execute an idea on ones own if one wishes to do so, even if I'm just making them in my garage with a few friends/employees.

[Taverner]

240. Start your own syndicate then - however, you'll have to work with others

To get materials

So it won't be a matter of getting born into $$$$

[socialist_n_TN]

204. Way to finish my thought T...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. i prefer the german model where corporate governance occurs in a more democratic way

unions are great, but unions cant prevent work from shipping somewhere where labor is cheaper (NYC to Alabama for instance). employee input into corporations however can.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Premise is every job is Union, that means go to Alabama, the Union is there too....

So. That is the premise of the OP's question. The answer is yes and yes to your idea as well, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

201. yeah but jobs can ship overseas too. i think unions are great but they don't solve

all problems with labor and 'owners'

[antigop]

82. the unions can make it very difficult to ship jobs elsewhere

they can bargain for severance packages that will make it very costly for a company to let them go, for example.

[socialist_n_TN]

111. Or they can take over and occupy a closed shop.........

and run it as a co-operative.

[antigop]

112. that would be perfect! nt

[hrmjustin]

5. I think it is a great idea.

[Travis_0004]

6. I'm my only employee. Can I unionize myself?

[King_Klonopin]

14. You'll go blind !

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Depending n the industry

The answer is yes...some unions have independents join and get at least some benefits.

[Fridays Child]

7. +1000

[arely staircase]

8. yes

the only way an individual worker has parity with a corporation or wealthy employer is within an organized union.

[ZombieHorde]

9. What about co-ops?

If 10 people start a business, and they are all equal owners and the only workers, do they still need a union?

[Taverner]

10. That's the most ideal situation

Flat system - workers own the means of production

[ZombieHorde]

32. I think so too.

I like socialism more than capitalism.

[delete_bush]

11. Yes.

They are greedy capitalists who will exploit themselves if left to their own devices.

They require an entity to look out for their best interests, which only an altruistic union is able to provide.

[newfie11]

12. Yes

[Recursion]

13. Then unions need to start letting everyone join no matter their occupation

Including the currently unemployed.

Unions are great unless you're not in one and want a job.

[King_Klonopin]

21. Unions aren't letting people "join" ??? WTF

I don't think you understand the concept of a "union".

If you want to work in a "union shop" but don't want to contribute
money for dues or participate in any way in a union, then you are
basically saying you want to reap the benefits and have all of the
protections that others fought for and are paying for. Seems quite
parasitic to me.

I'm a member of a union. It's a nurses union. Should we let
meat packers or truck drivers join? Any unemployed nurse is welcome
to join, encouraged to join, and expected to join our union.

Unions aren't the cause of unemployment. The concentration of power
at the top of an economic pyramid is the cause of unemployment, and
low wages, and crappy benefits, and.................

[Recursion]

23. Bwah! Try getting into, say, IBEW if you don't know somebody

Or the longshoremen.

"The books are closed, unless you're my cousin." There's a reason people get resentful: it's a deliberate, sustained artificial labor shortage done for the benefit of those currently in the union to the detriment of those not in it and not connected enough to get in it.

[King_Klonopin]

27. Now I'M confused.

As to joining a union (whether or not an actual job exists) I have
no experience. The issue I was focused on was the "right to work" laws
which are just an end-around run to undermine public sector unions
like AFSCME where job positions exist but are filled by non-union
workers. The troubles of joining a trade union is another issue.

Nepotism is everywhere, I'm afraid

Sorry.

[Recursion]

28. Yeah I like the AFSCME model better

Once you get a job, you're in a union. I'm complaining about the trade hall style where you have to be in the union in the first place to get a job.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. But what do you DO for a living again? Seriously here is a link to IWEB, apprenticeship

and workplace organizing help. Entire shops can join IBEW with help from IBEW. What you are typing is a raft of bullshit.
http://www.ibew.org/contact.htm
What DO you do? Anything?

[Recursion]

55. I'm a sysadmin

There's only ever one of us in a company so we have a hard time organizing.

My brother tried for years to get into IBEW, and only could once he got to know the local rep.

I suggest you have never tried to actually do one of the trade hall apprenticeships. They'll just deny you for years and say "sorry, the books are closed". But then miraculously other people get the apprenticeships.

[Skeeter Barnes]

85. Then "everyone" better be ready to go on strike until the employer signs a contract with the Union.

[Recursion]

113. When AFL stops crossing carpenters' pickets?

Yeah. Solidarity. Until we decide not...

[Skeeter Barnes]

123. You think you just join and the money starts rolling in? There has to be a contract.

Best of luck to you negotiating with management on your own.

[Recursion]

134. No, I think IBEW and ILU have an interest in keeping the books closed

because if they let everybody who wanted to have that work train and take the jobs, there wouldn't be enough hours for everybody. Which is great for the people who are in, and sucks for the people who aren't.

Separately, I think AFL and SEIU should stop crossing carpenters' picket lines. I know the carpenters piss everybody off, but that just looks horrible.

[Skeeter Barnes]

138. So it's their fault there's not enough work at any given time?

Of course they're going to protect full time jobs. You want them to take on a bunch more people and have them paying dues when there's no work for them?

[Recursion]

139. I certainly don't expect the people shut out to not be resentful

particularly when there's not even an attempt to hide the nepotism behind who gets in and who doesn't.

[Skeeter Barnes]

142. Why resent the Unions? They don't set the production schedules. Management does.

You think there's not nepotism in the non union workplace? Why are you trying to make this sound like a union thing when it's everywhere?

You are looking for any reason you can come up with to say you've been mistreated or done wrong somehow when they haven't done a damn thing to you.

With the Union, there's *more* people working, not less. Without the Union, management will try to have ten people doing the work of 20 with ridiculous production quotas.

If you don't like Unions and don't want to pay dues, just say so.

[Recursion]

146. What part of this is difficult to understand?

I dislike the nepotism in trade hall-style unions like IBEW and ILU.

You say "but what about nepotism in management?" I dislike that too. You seem to think that somehow defeats my argument, but it doesn't. In fact, it's completely unrelated.

With the Union, there's *more* people working, not less.

No.

My brother's IBEW local decides every spring how many union electricians there's going to be that year. It's great for the people in the union. It sucks for the people waiting for their apprentice cards. If anybody who wanted to and could pass the test could bid on union contracts, there would be more electricians, each of whom would earn less. It's how a cartel works. It's not particularly evil, but it's also not helpful to people who aren't in well with the people who decide who gets on the books.

Now, if getting your apprentice card in the first place was as fair as getting jobs once you had it, that would be much better.

[Skeeter Barnes]

147. Is your brother being skipped over in seniority? Junior men are being put to work before him?

If he is, then that's a legitimate complaint and he should file a grievance at the Local. If the Local won't take it up, he will have to go higher up the ladder to regional or national office.

[Recursion]

150. OFFS. He's *in the union now* so it's great for him

The problem is getting in the union in the first place. That's what's difficult and requires having connections. If they just had a waiting list to get your apprentice card in the first place like they do for jobs once you have it, that would be one thing (it would still be an artificial labor scarcity, but at least it would be a much more fair one at that point).

[Skeeter Barnes]

158. Yeah, I got that he's in it.

You made it sound like he was being skipped over on seniority and the work was going to someone else junior to him.

I don't know why you would expect them to cut hours from full timers to put more people to work. That defeats the purpose of a Union. That's one of the things they do - protect full time jobs. That's not artificial scarcity. It just means there are a certain number of full time positions and that's it. You may want to rethink your line of reasoning on that.

There's only so many of these good paying jobs so you have to be qualified and in the right place at the right time. I waited eight years to get the job I've got. I drove for bottom feeder truck lines out for 2-3 weeks at a time making shit money but I don't blame the Teamsters for not cutting some full timers hours to make room for me to come in and work half of his hours.

I think you are trying really hard to come up with a reason to gripe about them.

If you don't like Unions, just admit it.

[JoeyT]

176. That's not really what he's saying.

It's understandable that the unions would protect full time jobs of people that are already members. But you cannot possibly expect the people that the union deliberately froze out to protect those jobs to support the union in any way. You can pretty much expect the exact opposite, in fact.

People wonder why non-union workers don't like unions, and when they're told why they have a fit.

[Skeeter Barnes]

180. "Have a fit" That is unfair and unwarranted.

I've discussed this in good faith, asked reasonable questions and gave reasonable answers.

I'm about done with this anyway. Have a good rest of the day.

[Downwinder]

15. Have to go against the flow here and say No.

There should be no impediments to the employees organizing in a collective group. There must be some management out there that is still employee oriented. Have to remember that there have been some unions that were not member oriented. There should be no more restriction on workers associating than there is on a company joining a trade association.

i worked for one Company where we offered to go nonunion if they would offer a pay scale and working conditions comparable with the rest of the industry. They said no they would rather deal with a union. It was easier for them to deal with employees collectively than individually.

[loli phabay]

20. i would say the option should be there, but its up to the individual if they want to join

[King_Klonopin]

22. That defeats and undermines the whole concept of "union".

[loli phabay]

24. nothing should be more important than the individuals right to decide

A lot of people dont want to pay dues that then go to political causes they dont like or agree with, and i do not think you can or should force people to do so.

[King_Klonopin]

25. To decide what ?

Whether to be a parasite and force their will on
an established group. The expectations are clear up front.
If General Electric doesn't "owe you a living" and ships jobs to
China, the why should the IBEW union "owe you a living".

"Right of choice" doesn't apply to this issue. GAWD

[loli phabay]

26. to devide if they want to he a member of a union or not or just pay an agency fee

Freedom of choice is quite important

[King_Klonopin]

29. OK here's an example of my own

I am a nurse. I have to pay fees every two years to renew my license.
Why don't I have the right to choose to NOT pay this burdensome
fee and still be allowed to work in my position? Because it is part of
the deal. The concept of a "right to choose" is misapplied here.

This is not a right to choose you describe. It's a "right to impose" that
you describe. What if your so-called right to choose results in a loss of
benefits and wages for me because the union eventually dissolves due
to a lack of membership ? I'm referring mostly to public sector jobs and
service industry jobs. Your amputating the hand that feeds.

[loli phabay]

30. okay heres my example, i am not in the union due to not liking their politics

Now why should i have to pay money for their politics if i disagree with them, instead i pay a much smaller agency fee. Your rights do not supersede the other guys rights, you both should have the freedom to join or not.

[ThirdWayCowplop]

34. If one does not like the union one is free to seek employment someplace else

Why would anyone who does not like unions or the policies of the union even want to work in a union shop in the first place?

Yes one has a right to be anti union but why go to a union shop and cause trouble by not joining the union?

If the majority in the shop want to be in a union then so be it, those who do not want to be in the union can work someplace else.

[Recursion]

44. Because, for example, one would like to work as a longshoreman

Politics aside, what would you suggest someone do who wants to be a longshoreman, but doesn't know anybody to let him in the union to begin with?

[ThirdWayCowplop]

45. Why would one want to be a member of an organization who does not want you?

I wanted to be an astronaut but they would not let me join so I choose another career path. In other words not everyone can be an astronaut or longshoreman.

You should choose another career path too.

[Recursion]

47. But what determines who gets to be a longshoreman shouldn't be

"who the current union leadership likes".

Unions that close their books are just like any other cartel: great for those in it, not great for the rest of us.

[Lordquinton]

156. Should probably stop trying to tie unions to criminal orginazations

Not a good way to promote your argument.

[grattsl]

166. but remarkably accurate, even if you don't like the discription.

[Recursion]

210. Huh? Cartels aren't criminal organizations

I mean, drug cartels are, but because of the "drug" part, not the "cartel" part.

[whopis01]

216. In most cases, business cartels are criminal

In most cases the term "drug cartel" is actually incorrect. What is often refered to as a drug cartel is actually not a cartel at all. It was a term popularized to describe any drug manufacturing / trafficing organization.

Cartels (in the business sense) are illegal under antitrust law in the US.

http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/knowles/eco303/CHAPTER%205r.doc

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Cartels

[Recursion]

217. A labor union is definitely a cartel

And it's not illegal at all.

The AMA is a cartel. RIAA is a cartel. IBEW is a cartel, albeit a more sympathetic one. They're a group that deliberately creates a labor shortage to increase the price of labor.

[grattsl]

163. because the union is not the employer!!!

they just grab the money as it goes from employer to employee. You should be allowed to take a job for the job, not for the betterment of the union.

[Skeeter Barnes]

86. Why should you have to pay money?

Because they negotiated a contract on your behalf and represent you in the workplace. That costs money.

Would you really work at a place under Union contract and not pay dues because they donate money to Democrats?

[loli phabay]

87. i dont pay dues as i am not a member, i pay an agency fee for the negotiation etc

My problem is that the union leadership take a different stance in the local politics than i do so i dont support the union.

[Skeeter Barnes]

93. You don't have the same pay and work rules the Union workers do?

None of the arrangements between you and your employer are similar to the contract in place with the Union? Do you make more or less than Union scale? Do you have the same health insurance as the Union members?

[loli phabay]

137. everything is the same, only difference is i pay a nominal fee that covers the cost of negotiations

Etc, not for the political side of the union. There are full members, and non members who pay the agecy fee and some who just dont pay anything. Full members have the union to represent them legally, others dont. The system works quite well and memners drop in and out depending on where the leadership lies on issues.

[Skeeter Barnes]

143. You are paying an agency when you are getting all the benefits of a Union contract?

[loli phabay]

149. no, the agency fee means you pay the union an agency fee to represent you in negotiations

You just dont pay for the other activities.

[Skeeter Barnes]

152. So you are in fact paying dues.

[loli phabay]

187. nope, its just a miniscule fee that covers admin for negotiations

[Hassin Bin Sober]

100. Can you explain this agency arrangement? I've never heard of it.

[Skeeter Barnes]

145. I'm finding some of this hard to believe.

I can't imagine a Union allowing some other agency to collect money for "negotiating" that these people that aren't members get the same pay and benefits under a CBA that's been agreed to.

I feel like he's telling me some bullshit.

[loli phabay]

151. or you dont understand the concept. which is the more plausible possibility.

[Skeeter Barnes]

153. Well you kept calling it an agency.

[loli phabay]

188. no, you need to reread i refer to whats called agency fees.

[Skeeter Barnes]

191. And you didn't specify that a Union was that agency.

I've never heard anyone refer to one as an agency.

[loli phabay]

193. you need to go learn some labor laws before you start to try to lecture people on them

I think there is stuff on agency fees on the nlrb website, or just use the google.

[Skeeter Barnes]

195. I'm not lecturing anyone and I'm not the only one that was unclear on what you meant.

[loli phabay]

197. hence my saying go look it up if you are confused what agency fees are.

[whopis01]

219. Here is some info

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop

[whopis01]

218. I don't think that is what he is saying

Though I may be wrong because this discussion is getting confusing.

I think he is saying that the agency fee is paid to the union (not to an outside agency) because the union is acting as an agent, negotiating his contract for him even though he is not part of the union.

However, since he does not pay full union dues, he does not realize the other benefits of being in the union (legal representation, etc.)

I think some of the confusion is coming from him insisting that he is not paying union dues - he is paying the union a certain amount (the agency fee) however that is lower than the normal full member dues.

[Skeeter Barnes]

125. Do you not have any of the benefits that the Union negotiated in the CBA at your workplace?

If you refuse to pay dues, I hope you also insist on making less than the Union workers and you go and get your own health insurance. If you do accept the pay and benefits under the CBA, you are a deadbeat looking for any reason you can find not to pay dues.

[King_Klonopin]

222. Loli, unions support and donate money to politicians/groups

who support labor and labor unions. To most progressives, this
is a good thing. Higher min. wage, health care, OSHA and all
that stuff.

Back in the 90's, McLean Hospital (one of the nation's prestige
psychiatric hospitals) spent over $5 million to defeat the nurses'
attempts to organize a union. One of the common arguments
against unionization was "Why should I have to pay $400 a year
for dues and be forced to join a union?" The effort to organize
was defeated. Nurses voted against their own interest. Today,
they have the LOWEST pay scale (and bad working conditions)
of any hospital in the Boston area.

The job I have now pays me $10/hr more than my prior non-
union job. That works out to $16,000/year. Plus I have more
job security and a voice in the process. I pay $880/yr in dues.
Seems pretty advantageous to me. Paying agency fees means
that you are still a member of the union -- you just can't
cast a vote. And you benefit in the end. Otherwise, why would
you or anyone else do it?

[loli phabay]

141. regardless of the politician or issue, if one does not agree with it or them one should not be

Made to have to support them. It comes down to choice. I simply pay the fee that covers the costs of the negotiations and thats it. I have no interest in having to fund eother politicians or issues that i do not support.

[Skeeter Barnes]

159. What issues are you at odds with?

[loli phabay]

190. well, i dont agree with some of their endorsements, or their stand on the 2nd amendment

Also their internal politics or grievance procedure for a couple of reasons.

[Skeeter Barnes]

192. I don't agree with everything my Union does either but I still pay dues.

I don't want to be a deadbeat.

[loli phabay]

194. well if your happy paying for endorsements and donations you dont agree with

Then knock yourself out, i prefer my cash to go towards stuff i want it to.

[Skeeter Barnes]

196. I'm quite happy, thanks.

[loli phabay]

198. glad to hear it as am i

[grattsl]

168. If every job is a union job as the original poster suggest, you can eigther join a union you disagee

with or be unemployed. Yah America!!! No freedom of choice, how patriotic!!!

[Skeeter Barnes]

170. If you want the "freedom" of working more hours for less money, nobody is keeping you from it.

[Kingofalldems]

41. That would be the republican postion for sure.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Flat out GOP position, that subthread was like walking through a meeting with Mitt

nt

[socialist_n_TN]

65. Haven't you guys noticed? These types of posters are part of the ......

"new" DU. The new neo-liberal DU. Fortunately, they're not very numerous (judging by the various DU polls that come out) and they are, in fact, LOSING influence, but they sure are loud. And obnoxious.

[grattsl]

161. Forcing people to be in a union to work is far more evil than right to work laws.

The worker should have every right to his/her own decision. They should not be compelled by what YOU think is best for you. They should have the opportunity to seek what is best for THEM.

[Skeeter Barnes]

164. Being in a Union is best for them. They will make more money and spend less time doing it.

"evil"

[grattsl]

171. Wasn't best for me.

I left for a job that respects me, is not at war with me, a pays much better. Why is this employer so much better? He doesn't have a union treating him as the enemy.

The reality is leaving the union was the best decision I've ever made as far as employment was concerned.

[Skeeter Barnes]

181. Whatever works for you.

[Skeeter Barnes]

81. People that enjoy Union paychecks and benefits but don't pay dues are lowlifes.

[Adrahil]

228. If I am coerced to join a union....

... How is that in any way superior to preventing me from joining a union?

[King_Klonopin]

242. Yah, you're right...

it's very oppressive to be "coerced" into joining a union,
and having to work in good conditions
with good benefits
and better pay
and protection from pay cuts
and protection from being summarily fired at the whim of an employee
and to have a seat at the negotiating table.


It's much nicer to have all those things by simply having them
handed to you at no cost to you

I'm tired of this dumb argument:
"I want the right to choose (to screw myself)!"

[Mr_Teg]

16. Should military be unionized?

Should Soldiers vote on whether or not they should go to war? On a mission?

[King_Klonopin]

18. Worker = Soldier ?????

I'm not fighting a war. I'm trying to provide a living
for myself.

Your analogy is as revealing as it is stupid;
you view workers as no more than cannon fodder for an employee,
pawns on the chess board, to be exploited and sacrificed as seen fit.

The Authoritarian who lords over the subordinate chattel.

What a tool.

[Mr_Teg]

40. WTF are you talking about?

It's a job. Employees of the government. Pay taxes and earn benefits just like everyone else.

You seem really desperate to take offense at a simple question. Here's a hint... When you use words like all, always, never or none you leave yourself open to an obvious exception proving you wrong.

[King_Klonopin]

220. So you are of the mind that any exception discredits the general rule?

Serving in the military is a tad different than working at Wal-Mart or
being a Police officer.

The chain of command in the military is part of the deal -- up front.
A soldier's reason for being is to follow orders, fight wars, to kill people
and break things. If they want to "unionize" for higher pay and benefits,
then be my guest -- they deserve it. It's not the same as telling the
Pentagon how to run the show.

Reduction to the absurd is a fallacious argument.
This example is poor, and seems purposefully concrete and obtuse.
Posts like these drip with the self-satisfaction of a troll.
And I'm not "offended"; I'm annoyed by "the smug".

[Mr_Teg]

221. Got it...

Since you made a silly argument that is open to a myriad of counter points, the rest of us should not point them out otherwise we are "smug."

Again, you seem desperate to be offended.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Union workers do not usually make decision about what will be produced nor do they decide the

'mission'. Your comment makes no sense. Union Auto Workers do not pick the models to build nor do Union actors decide which script to shoot. Union Nurses do not dictate hospital regulations, nor the specialty of a facility. Union workers make a contract, as do soldiers, and they function under that contract until it expires, as do soldiers.

[Mr_Teg]

58. They do decide if they want to show up to work....

... which is the equivalent of deployment or going to war. Refusal to deploy en masse would be the same as a strike.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. Why yes, yes it would......

If it had to go before Soldier's Councils for approval, we might not have ever gotten involved in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or now Syria. Or maybe we WOULD have gotten involved (if the propaganda had been as effective on the Councils as it was on the general population), but we would have gotten OUT of those situations as soon as the grunts saw what bullshit the reasons for the involvement were.

[socialist_n_TN]

57. Yep, they should......

Soldier's councils should have veto power over orders from the elite officer corps and the politician over them. I sure would want the grunts to have a veto power over an order to fire on American demonstrators and strikers.

[Mr_Teg]

59. Really?

You think SPC Joe Snuffy has the background and education and above all the information to make an informed decision as to national and international defense policy and strategy?

[socialist_n_TN]

61. Not necessarily, but I DO think that the mass of "SPC Joe Snuffy".......

would have that background and education to make decisions. And if they're making the decisions and putting THEIR lives on the line, then maybe they should have all the information they need to make informed decisions.

That's bottom up democracy in action.

[Kingofalldems]

96. What a coincidence, there used to be a DUer named Joe Snuffy

[Mr_Teg]

99. It's the military equivalent of Smith...

So that doesn't surprise me...

[Recursion]

121. It's the Army equivalent of "John Q. Public"

In the Marines we say "PFC Schmuckatelli"

[Adrahil]

62. Ummmmm... No.

Any military run that way wouldnt be worth two farts.

[socialist_n_TN]

64. Any military run that way wouldn't be involved in bullshit wars..........

at the behest of, and for the profits of, the Halliburtons of the world. Any military run that way would be TRULY part of a DEFENSE department, rather than an imperialism.

[Adrahil]

66. Yes, that's lovely talk

And complete nonsense. A military organization spends on good order and and discipline. This soldier's council stuff is the worst kind of fuzzy-headed, well-intentioned socialist nonsense.

[socialist_n_TN]

67. Thank you for your concern........

And your attitude is the worst kind of imperialist, self serving capitalist nonsense. Any good capitalists will tell you it's not only the right, but it's the DUTY of the working class and poor to die for Halliburton's profits. It's always nice to know where people are coming from.

[Adrahil]

68. Thanks for your input Comrade...

You must be a plant of some kind.

[socialist_n_TN]

70. Nope. Just your garden variety Trotskyist........

My positions are well known on DU. I've been here for a few years now.

That means I KNOW where I stand and it's ALWAYS with the workers and the oppressed. Where do you stand?

[Mr_Teg]

72. Ok squad...

We need to move to that position so that we can get overwatch on the advancing elements and be prepared to call for fire

I'll be passing out ballots so you can vote if you think we should go or not... No peeking!

[socialist_n_TN]

73. ALL the neo-liberals want a totally worked out socialist...........

government set up explained in an Internet post.

The ELECTED officer (elected by his unit and subject to immediate recall) and the actual grunts who have VOTED to go to this war (giving them actual skin in the decision making) would deal with live fire situations much like they do now. It's just the consequences of those live fire decisions would be judged by the ones who actually suffered the consequences.

[Mr_Teg]

94. Ha...

Command being reduced to the equivalent of voting for prom king and queen.... Except they can be recalled if they start doing things or missions that the unit finds unacceptable... or tiring... or inconvenient...

I would be very interested to see if there has ever been an effective military in the history of the world that has functioned this way.

[socialist_n_TN]

97. The closest was the Russian military in 1917.......

When they, along with worker militias, defeated Deniken's countercoup against the Bolsheviks. Also you could probably add in Trotsky's Red Army during the Civil War.

In both of those situations, that model won because they were fighters who were fighting FOR something they believed in.

[socialist_n_TN]

117. And do you really think that soldiers who put their lives on the line.........

would consider their elected officers "prom queens"? I would expect that anybody that puts themselves in harm's way would want officers that would be the best at keeping them alive.

[Adrahil]

229. Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

We're not an Army.... More of an autonomous collective..... With guns.


You have got to be joking.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. Why waste money on a military that couldn't fight wars?

A military on the lines you outline would cost as much or more as any other military, but have the same military value as no military.

If you don't want the country to be able to fight wars, just get rid of the military and save the money.

[socialist_n_TN]

95. Agree with your last sentence over the long term....

Worker self defense militias are the way to go. However, there will be a transition time where some sort of military would be needed. Soldier's Councils would keep the military missions closer to necessary rather than wars of choice for the profit of the international corporations.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

110. What's the difference?

How is a "worker self defense militia" different to a common or garden army?

[socialist_n_TN]

115. Well they probably wouldn't vote to go into Iraq.......

and maybe Syria for the benefit of Halliburton's profits. More than likely they would be more concerned with defending workers against Academi (Blackwater, Xi) who have been hired by the corps to put the fear of God into workers for daring to organize into unions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

116. That's not terribly informative.

Is the idea that, rather than obeying orders from officers, your proposed militia would make decisions democratically?

[socialist_n_TN]

118. As I said in another post,..........

decisions would be made democratically whenever practical and elected, immediately recallable officers would have control during situations that require immediate decisions. Under fire decisions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

128. That's a terrible, terrible idea.

To list a few of the many reasons:

Impossibility of coordination above the small-unit level, hence inability to fight a war.
More risk of atrocities if a unit can vote to replace an officer who forbids looting or rape.
Absence of accountability to civilian leadership, and hence far more risk of coup.
Leadership selected for popularity, not ability.

Strictly-disciplined all-volunteer professional armies answerable to the elected civilian leadership, of a size determined by the relative benefits of being able to fight humanitarian or defensive wars more effectively and of non-military spending or tax cuts are the way to go.

[socialist_n_TN]

205. That is such bullshit...

You and the other poster I've been arguing with in this sub thread seem to have a VERY low opinion of soldiers ability to choose their leaders. I would think that rather than "prom queens", soldiers whose lives will be on the line will vote for the one who will be best at saving their lives.

Also, immediately recallable officers would be elected all the way up the chain. Squads would elect their leaders, who would elect platoon leaders, who would elect company leaders, who would elect brigade leaders, who would elect division leaders, who would either make decisions collectively and/or elect a coordinator.

I'll trust soldiers whose lives are on the line over old white men to make those decisions any day.

[Adrahil]

241. I'm guessing you have zero experience with the military.

Your ideas sound all idealistic and egalitarian, but guess what? Battle is a chaotic mess, requiring decisive leadership that doesnt have to consider how popular their decisions will maken them. And the military serves the PEOPLE, not the soldiers. The commanders of the military must serve the interests of People, not the parochial interests of their own soldiery. The military MUST be subordinate to the civilian government, and that means military officers appointed by that government.

[King_Klonopin]

17. Yup.

Or we can put our trust in the benevolence
of the job creators and virtues of the free-
market system to protect our interests.

Yeah, right.

[riversedge]

31. high confidence YES

[B Calm]

33. A union is the bastard child

of piss poor management.

[Lee-Lee]

35. They should all have the option

And that should be far easier to exercise than it is, and not require a majority of workers to agree to from.

We should absolutely do away with laws like we have here in NC that prohibit all state, county ad city workers from having any collective bargaining rights. That is downright shameful, even more so when you look that the law was passed by Democrats and the Democrats, supposedly on the side of the worker, steadfastly refused to repeal that law any time they had the majority and ability.

[KG]

36. fuckin' a.

[Sancho]

37. Absolutely yes!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Only if the concept of "union" is reformed beyond recognition.

No-one should be forced to donate money to an organisation that will use it for political campaigning.

So at a bare minimum you'd either have to make union dues optional, or forbid them from any kind of political activity.

So, basically, the answer is "no, of course not".

[Mr_Teg]

51. Good point...

[socialist_n_TN]

74. And another neo-liberal, Republican talking point heard from...........

Money is not "donated". They're called dues and sometimes dues are used to advance the political agenda held by a MAJORITY of the membership. A majority that votes FOR those dues to be used that way. That's the way unions work. You know, democracy. Ever heard of it?

Now if you don't want your money used for the political agenda that the MAJORITY of the membership wants it to be used for, you, in this hypothetical situation, would be free to leave the union. And the job.

Now I do agree that the unions need reforms into less of a top down, bureaucratic, and craft and business union model, but that's a whole nother subject.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. There's nothing "neo" about my views, and nothing liberal about yours.

Making it a legal requirement to join a union in order to hold any job is as illiberal and undemocratic a proposal as one could hope not to hear on a nominally liberal and democratic discussion board.

If you genuinely think that "democracy" means that everyone should have to pay what is effectively a tax which will be spent on promoting the a particular set of political ideas, and quite possibly a specific political party, then it's you, and not I, who needs education in what the term means.

And there's certainly nothing liberal about the state coercing people to fund the promotion of your ideology on pain of unemployment.

No employer should be allowed to refuse to employ union members.
Employers should probably be allowed to refuse to employ non-union members.
Employers should *not* be forced to refuse to employ non-union members.

If you want to see what legally-mandated trade unions turn out like, go look at some of the communist countries that have had them.

[socialist_n_TN]

83. Please! I've NEVER claimed to be "liberal".........

I'm a Marxist of the Trotskyist tendency through and through.

That said, what you espoused is EXACTLY what the neo-liberals propagandized among the union membership in order to undermine union support for DEMOCRATS! I saw it over and over from Reagan on.

And as far as the democracy crack, you've got every right, as a member in good standing of the union, to lobby for NOT spending the money on the political agenda. If you can convince the majority, then your positions wins. And yes, that's democracy.

[iemitsu]

132. Every action or thought has a political implication.

Unions are involved in politics, because politics determine much about the state of working conditions. To expect a union to be able to protect its workers without being involved in politics is silly.
The notion of a "corrupt" union has been blown out of proportion, or it was blown out of proportion when it was first introduced as a propaganda tool, to discourage workers from wanting to belong to unions.
The extent that unions are actually corrupt today, tends to be the result of corporatists planting sympathetic characters in the workforce to run for union positions. These characters have been selling out their union fellows for several decades.
If you don't agree with the politics of unions you probably don't really care if workers are protected from exploitation anyway.
The other way to solve the problems associated with the exploitation of American workers is to foster true respect, among all Americans, for each other, as valuable individuals, who deserve fair compensation for their labor, and clean, safe places to work.
Universally unionized workplaces would sponsor this attitude, while the competition model sponsors just the opposite.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. Corruption is a different issue.

A corrupt union is clearly a problem even if membership is only voluntary, not compulsory. But one can feasibly hope to eradicate corruption from unions almost completely, and have mostly non-corrupt unions.

But even a completely decent and uncorrupt union would not be a good thing if people were forced to join it by law.

Let me put it this way: how would you feel if, as a prerequisite for holding any kind of job, you were legally required to spend money to support the Republican party or its views?

What - other than the fact that you personally hold those views - makes it any more acceptable to force people to spend money to support the Democratic party or its views?

[iemitsu]

148. Political parties change their vews and priorities over time.

There was a time when republicans were the progressives and democrats were conservative. That changed in the 1920s and democrats became the progressives.
Today neither party represents workers well. In an all unionized nation, workers could create a party, or two, or three to address the lack of representation that exists in congress today.
One does not have to agree with his/her fellow workers on all things political but all workers have a stake in clean, safe workplaces. In theory, and historically, that is why unions have been (and have to be) involved in politics.
Both political parties are screwing the public and we have little recourse to make any changes to that system, but a strong worker coalition would have the power to effect some needed changes. One can assume that workers would have a voice in the direction of change, since unions are run democratically, by their membership. That's more input than our political system allows. Why would you want to restrict that potential influence?
The way things are, the government does not care what you think. That would not be the case if workers had political and economic power.

[RKP5637]

39. IMO, Yes! Most employees really have absolutely no recourse for

fairness. HR? HR in most companies is a joke, and many smaller companies have nothing like HR at all. It seems Germany has a model that works?

[Scuba]

42. Oh hell yes!

[Adrahil]

43. Everyone should have the option.

But, for example, I do not feel the need to be in a union at my job. My management Treats employees with respect, and pays well, with good benefits. No need.

But my LAST job.....

[socialist_n_TN]

69. See post number 60......

nm.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

105. Well that can change.

My partner works at one of "the top five places to work in Illinois". They have held that distinction for years.

New CFO. New rules.

For the last three years he has been "voluntarily down-staffing" to help avoid layoffs. Basically he has taken a 10% pay cut.

Hasn't stopped the lay-offs. Fourth round is coming up.

Management pay and bonuses at an all time high.

Is any individual going to speak up? Fuck no. They are all scared for their jobs.

[socialist_n_TN]

109. Yep. Exactly what I argued in posts 60, 77, and 101....

nm

[Adrahil]

231. Yes it can... Which is why I should have the option...

But for now, my small company rocks. I know the owners personally, and we have a shared vision for the success of the company and it's employees.

It's nice to be able to cut away the dead wood without have layers of union rules to pile through, and at least so far, they have bent of backwards to ensure everyone at the company, down to the front desk receptionist, has good pay, good benefits, and good morale. So long as they continue to do so, I see no reason to burden the company with unnecessary rules.

If they ever changed, I wouldnt hesitate to act. Well, actually, I'd just go to another company. That's what I did last time. My company's Managment got stupid, so I resigned and went to a company run by people not overcome by stupid.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

233. Cool story, Bro!

[Adrahil]

235. I appreciate your sincere reply. nt.

[madokie]

46. If the people working that job so wishes, Yes by all means. nt

[99Forever]

48. Exactly.

And ALL workers need to STOP bashing other workers that have made solid gains through their UNIONS. It's nothing more than the well worn tactic of divide and conquer. Do NOT be fooled by 1%er bullshit, when your UNION brothers and sisters do well, it's good for ALL of us.

[no_hypocrisy]

56. Exception to "non-union jobs":

Those jobs where the employer/management pays decent compensation, health benefits, pension, work safety, humane work hours, fair competition and promotion among workers, fair independent tribunal for conflicts within the workplace, etc. In other words, a company acting like it has a union with having an actual union. Voluntary rather than compelled.

The only example of my standard is Lincoln Electric in Illinois. Workers consistently voted against forming a union because they are well taken care of by the company.

[socialist_n_TN]

60. Until the company decides to NOT take care of the workers. Or..........

until they are bought out by Bain Capital who also decides NOT to take care of the workers. Doing it like this leaves the owners in a position to do whatever the fuck they want without consequence.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

71. We are all, each of us,

either an owner or a worker so my response is YES! If you are not an owner, you should be organized.

[Jenoch]

75. I see a flaw in the theory that all jobs

should be union jobs.

When I was in high school and college I worked for a small company that took good care of the employees (12 full time and me part time). I got paid a decent wage and they were flexible in my hours for school and extra-curricular activities. Here's the thing that still astonishes me, at the end of the year, there was profit sharing. Even for me the part-timer got $2,000. I know of long time employees getting $10,000 to $12,000. These were mid 1980s dollars.

Not all employers are out to screw the employees.

[socialist_n_TN]

77. But all employers have the POWER to screw employees........

And what's more, the system itself actually ENCOURAGES employers to screw employees. And the bigger the company, the more effect the systemic pressure is on the employer to screw the employees.

In setting up a union, there is a counterbalance to this systemic pressure. And if an employer is NOT out to screw his employees, nothing changes for him/her.

[Jenoch]

89. Actually, it was 'the system'

that encouraged my employer to pay the bonuses. The employer chose to give the money to employees rather than having to pay the taxes on those profits.

[socialist_n_TN]

101. And I wonder if that employer would have that same pressure........

with the laws today as it was when you worked there. I haven't researched, so I don't really know, but I would suspect there would be LESS incentive now to make those payments as the tax laws have been changed to allow the owners to keep more profits untaxed.

And that still doesn't matter when that company gets bought out and Bain Capital (or the equivalent) takes over. OR if the company gets big enough to "go public" and the pressure is REALLY on to maximize profits for the investors over EVERYTHING else. That actually was what I was trying to point out. "Good" actors are all fine UNTIL the systemic incentives become overwhelming to NOT be "good" actors. Unions counterbalance this incentive.

[Jenoch]

107. I was simply attempting to point out

with my anecdote that not ALL jobs should be union jobs. I fully support unions however I do not think a claim can be made that ALL kobs in the U.S. should be unionized.

[socialist_n_TN]

120. And that's fine and I even understand the sentiment.......

or at least, where the sentiment comes from. I just don't agree with it. I believe it's all about power in society and the power held by owners over individual economic fates.

As long as you have a hierarchical systemic model, you'll never have any sort of true democracy politically or even in the individual workplaces. When you have to rely on the good graces and morals of an owner, you can potentially be in trouble.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

131. That can change fast. And tax policy as it stands certainly ain't helping.

Besides my example in #105 of a situation that hits very close to home.

My brother is another example of how things change fast. Even in a union shop.

My brother is a union carpenter and has worked for the same family owned company for 20 plus years.

They used to get great profit sharing bonuses. That was the first thing to go after the father died and the shit-heel kids took over the company.

The father was a decent old guy who made a lot of money for himself and his family but he lived a modest lifestyle.

Now that dad is gone, the kids all want to be the boss and all live in 12,000 square foot houses. Cars, boats, airplanes (one died in a stunt plane crash).

The next thing to go after the profit sharing was the quality of work. The kid that finally landed on top started having laborers do electrical and plumbing. He would bid for those trades and then use his guys to do the haphazard work.

Then he started in with the "I can't pay you union scale but I will pay you cash". He started at $25 dollars an hour cash no pension or benefits. My brother was the first to say no fucking way. They got rid of him.

The latest is, now they are down to $15 dollars an hour cash. No benefits. Keep in mind these are people that have paid in to a pension their whole careers.

The only thing that makes sense to me is it is cheaper for this guy to pull money out of the company, pay personal taxes, and kick back his measly $15 bucks than to do things on the up and up. These are all big commercial accounts so there is no cash payments and everything is 1099'd.

The unions used to be a help but even THEY are scrambling and scratching to stay above water. A lot of the locals are closing down. The dick-head has carpenters and bricklayers joining the laborer's union if they want to work. Apparently the LU doesn't care too much if their guys aren't turning in hours as long as they get their dues. Like lobsters in boiling water - no need for a lid.

The union says they can't do anything about it unless my brother wants to work for cash and then turn HIMSELF in to the union. The state and feds could look at him I guess. Maybe the NSA can wire-tap him.

[Jenoch]

135. As I said, I am not anti-union.

I think all of the trades should be union jobs. I just don't think one size fits all.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

155. I was mainly countering the idea...

....(in a round about long winded way) that employers would rather pay their employees than pay taxes on retained profits. That used to be the case but not these days, as a whole.

I think this is one of the biggest problems we face today.

[Octafish]

79. Absolutely.

The Ownership class has had its way, pretty much non-stop, since Nov. 22, 1963.

Look where it's gotten America: The middle class on the verge of poverty. The poor working jobs to nowhere. And the rich the richest in history and getting richer.

[LWolf]

80. YES. nt

[bemildred]

84. "One Big Union" is actually a pretty old idea. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

102. Yes it is. The Wobblies developed the idea........

Although I think that the Knights of Labor were the first to espouse it. At least in the USA.

[Taverner]

124. IWW: Industrial Workers of the World. One big UNION!

[Deuce]

88. Yes...

[Skeeter Barnes]

90. Yes

[Ohio Joe]

91. I've let this rattle around in my head all night

And you are completely correct. I can think of zero jobs that would be better off NOT being union... And yet we have allowed unions to become all but dead. It's crazy how we have just handed over control to corporations... Not only without a fight but with a smile.

It's fucked up.

[former9thward]

92. How about letting the workers decide?

Is that such a novel idea? No one should be forced to do anything. I say that as being a member of the United Steelworkers Union for 14 years and being an elected official of my Local for nine years including being Chairman for six.

[Kingofalldems]

98. This thread certainly brought out some republicans

Part of it like reading a transcript from pigboy Limbaugh's show.

[leftstreet]

104. It sure brings out worker dissatisfaction

and lack of class consciousness, and serious misunderstanding of labor history

But that happens regardless of political affiliation

You'd get the same people arguing in favor with the question 'should all states be right-to-work?'

Trainwreck threads

[socialist_n_TN]

108. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's a factor of the increased popularity of DU. During the Wisconsin uprising, DU was touted as THE place to go for updated news and support for that uprising and, indeed, all labor news and issues. Because of that we got popular and saw an influx of DINOs and Third Way types who were going to set us straight.

They're loud and obnoxious, but they have very limited actual influence over the discussions. If anything, the positions held by an overwhelming number of DUers are MORE left than they were in 2011. At least judging by the DU polls that come out all of the time.

[Taverner]

126. I know, huh?

[NoGOPZone]

189. pathetic, ain't it?

this is even worse than the Zimmerman threads

[Kingofalldems]

202. These people get all Ayn Randian when McDonald's workers ask for a tiny raise.

Freepers, every damn one of them.

[iemitsu]

103. yes, either all jobs should be unionized or we

need national employment laws that guarantee the same kind of working environment that union jobs used to provide for American workers. And anyone, who works the equivalent of a 40 hour week, deserves a living wage.

[grattsl]

178. I am all for the government doing it's job!!!

I am also for far pay, but I don't see it coming from the unions.

[iemitsu]

213. There is nothing inherently wrong with Unions.

They are as good or bad as their membership makes them, just like any democratic organization.
Unions are groups of people working together to achieve common goals.
If unions, groups of people working together, cannot solve our problems, what on earth will?
Is our national democracy so awful that you can't conceive of a smaller democratically run group working?
I don't get the animosity toward unions. Its like saying you don't trust or like your fellow man. Well, I got news for you, your fellow man is a lot more trustworthy than your typical boss man.

[Egalitarian Thug]

106. I think we need more relevant ideas. We don't live in the 19th century any more and we need

better ideas than those developed during that time.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

133. "We don't live in the 19th century any more"

Not for lack of trying.

Union busting bosses.
Union busting legislators.
Largest employer also has the most employees on public aid.
Large percentage of un-paid on-call employees waiting by the phone for work


Bring in the Pinkertons.

[Egalitarian Thug]

140. And don't forget the anti-labor laws we suffer from here.

I have also been looking for some Democrat to talk about changing those abominations...

So far, nothing.

[reformist2]

185. A better idea would be a guaranteed minimum income, whether one works or not!

I have a feeling the world isn't ready for that idea yet, so I think we have to support unions as the only viable option for now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

200. I fully support unions, I am a member of one (not active, I retain membership to support them).

But I really want to see the unions start to innovate. They've already lost the old game, the only power they ever had lay in their ability to shut a company down when it refused to negotiate. Well, that ability was taken away from them over half a century ago through the bipartisan support of both parties. And just like the management they pretend to fight, they are nothing but a buffer between the workers and the owners now.

One idea that appeals to me is; whenever a company goes to the bankruptcy court seeking relief from union obligations, the union should appear in that court offering to buy the company out at just above the fire-sale prices currently used to further enrich corporate parasites. I predict that, if they began implementing that strategy, the bankruptcy court's case load would drop by half.

[rrneck]

114. No. But the vast majority should. nt

[gopiscrap]

119. Absolutely

in fact IMHO private business should be abolished!

[Harmony Blue]

127. Absolutely

I am convinced after seeing the results of a "Right to work" state like Florida.

[Glassunion]

129. No.

Collective bargaining however, a big yes!

[Populist_Prole]

130. Yes. The working class would be a VERY strong bloc

And like the OP said, corporations organize even more overtly. They just don't call them "unions" but the Chamber of Commerce is a corporate union if ever there were.

[valerief]

154. Of course. nt

[grattsl]

157. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

I left the union a long time ago and I am much better for it. NO ONE should limit my income, and then take money out of my check for having done absolutely nothing to help me earn the money in the first place.

Besides, the only reason we have any need for a union is the government isn't doing it's job. If our government acted as a watch dog and not a lap dog the union would be pointless. I DO NOT support outsourcing what should be the government's responsibility to a group that has less authority or oversight. If you don't believe me try disagreeing with a local B.A. or Shop Stewart and see how much work you get.

NO ONE should decided if I should work or how much I should make but me.

[Taverner]

160. Um, I think you want the Objectivism forum. Or Libertarianunderground

This site is for Democrats

Thank you

[grattsl]

174. I am a Democrat, and find myself on the left of the party on most issues.

This is the one issue I think the party is dead WRONG on. There are many ways to obtain decent pay and work conditions for workers. My experience with unions has shown me how not to achieve a positive employment situation. The corruption and incompetence was uncanny and unconscionable. No one could speak up or try to fix it for fear of not having next months rent, due to the lack of work they would face. I normally wouldn't use the word evil, but that was what I saw from my union experience. As far as I am concerned the union is a bad idea.

[mike_c]

169. I don't know what line of work you're in...

...but my union PROTECTS my job. It doesn't interfere with it. And if you work in a union shop then it's very likely that you benefit directly from collective bargaining. We have freeloaders like that in my workplace too, who are happy to accept the higher wages and better benefits that collective bargaining gets us, while complaining bitterly about the monthly dues and refusing to join the union for-- generally-- pretty silly and selfish reasons. But as I said, they're happy to accept the benefits.

[grattsl]

175. I used to be union.

Now I make money.

[valerief]

177. Then that Post Office union must be a thorn in your side. nt

[grattsl]

179. I'm not telling anyone not to join a union. Don't make me take a pay cut to join yours.

[socialist_n_TN]

223. Shop STEWARD...........

If you're going to diss unions claiming personal experience, perhaps you should actually learn what the actual words are.

[socialist_n_TN]

225. You must be one of those "Reagan" Democrats...........

Because that line implying that there's no need for unions because the government has taken over the protections that were formerly done by unions is STRAIGHT out of the Reagan Songbook.

Also how do you think that those governmental protections were installed in the first place? It certainly wasn't out of the benevolent hearts of the owners. It was because unions FOUGHT, bled and died for those protections. And since capitalists OWN the government, what's to prevent them from repealing those protections?

[mike_c]

162. I agree 100 percent....

I have a good salary and great benefits because my union has my back. Solidarity!

[Taverner]

165. We in IT should have unionized in the 90s

We had them by the balls then

But too many libertarians and folks who thought they'd be zillionaires some day

[Little Star]

172. big YES. All of them if I had my way. k&r

[jwirr]

173. Yes

[reformist2]

184. Workers of the world, unite! But do so in small groups first. ;)

[Nye Bevan]

186. If you don't like unions, don't join one. See how simple it is?

I'm not going to tell women what they should do with their bodies, and I'm not going to tell people whether they should join unions. Anyone who wants to should be allowed to join a union (reading this thread, I'm surprised how difficult some unions make this), but nobody who does not want to should be forced to join a union.

I guess I'm pro-choice on this issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

199. Yes. Including the military.

[awoke_in_2003]

203. Hell yes, they should. nt

[Nikia]

206. There are good things and bad things about unions

As for good things, generally more consistent rules and employee treatment and often better wages.
As for the bad things, I disagree with promotions based purely on seniority. People have different skills, knowledge, background, and talents. Someone shouldn't be at the top of the list for a promotion just because they put in a minimal effort with the same employer over a long period of time.

[Taverner]

211. Thing is it's not always seniority

My cousin is an electrician and his union is very particular when it comes to skill sets

In short, the more you know

[Recursion]

212. Right, but if a guy who is nowhere near as good as you is ahead of you

then he gets the next job, period. That's the whole point. For that matter my brother has had sites hire the guy ahead of him for the minimum number of hours just so they could then hire my brother to do the work.

Apprentice to journeyman is just a bump based on hours worked (though obviously your local will kick you out if you're not capable of doing your job by that point); I don't know about the journeyman to master jump.

[upi402]

230. There's no substitute for experience

...not even ass kissing and brown nosing the boss or bowing to the flavor-of-the-day goals and procedures.
It all comes out in the wash, I figure. I just don't like brown nosers I guess.


my .02

[oneshooter]

207. I'm self employed. I guess I could strike on myself for better wages.

[idwiyo]

208. Yes, without a doubt.

[Initech]

209. Short answer: yes!!!!!!

As someone who is a low level employee and had their hours slashed, I'd love for the opportunity to renegotiate those back and if I had a union backing me it would make things a lot easier.

[hay rick]

214. All workers should have basic protections.

Unions seek to assure "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." That is something that is rapidly disappearing in this country. Unions also try to prevent workplace discrimination and disparate treatment. All workers should have these basic protections. If these benefits were mandated in a meaningful way by federal law, unions would be superfluous.

I think of unions like I think about PPACA. PPACA is clearly inferior to single-payer but clearly superior to the existing system. Unions are a poor substitute for strong federal worker protections but clearly superior to at-will employment with no real legal protection.

[Chan790]

215. Yup.

Universal organization represents the best opportunity under a failed entrenched capitalism for workers to control the means of production and the profits of their labor.

[Dreamer Tatum]

224. As long as everyone has to ability to opt out and not pay dues.

There's no need for a union headquarters to have a fucking golf course.

[upi402]

227. Yes! 100%!!! eom