Should private labor unions be outlawed?

Based on people I know, the major reason for existing in a union back in the 80's, for instance, was to make sure that employers couldn't fire you just because they didn't like you personally, or something like that. Now, it's mainly to secure benefits, but using government for this is wrong IMO.

 

So you are not concerned with the obvious economics of the situation you would rather just appeal to authority?

The reality of the situation is that you have 0 understanding of the economic impact unions have. You just feel they are good because you think they "stick up for the working man/woman". You are the worst kind of shill.

 

Labor unions are not really a fair solution to the problem. And frequently they are not very effective because there are always other under/un-employed potential workers willing to work for less money. It is also not uncommon for labor unions to be corrupt, paying their leaders unreasonably large salaries and creating unfair heirarchies of "full-time" and "part-time" workers, even though they may both be working the same hours.

But despite all the problems, I still think workers unions are better than nothing. Something has to be done to protect the wages of the working class. Perhaps in an ideal economy, where there is not a shortage of decent paying jobs, unions should be illegal. But until society figures out how to solve the problem, I will remain in support of worker's unions.

I also do not see the purpose of unions for public employees. Is not the government there to ensure decent wages? So why have a union? It seems a little inequitable that the public sector should essentially get special union rights that the private sector gets. I am all for decent wages, but I am also aware of far to many cases of upper level public employees getting over-generous benefits because of their union. No one should be getting paid 90% of their former salary for the rest of their life after they have stopped working! Especially if their salary was over 90000 per year. But this happens commonly in the public sector. It is just disgusting how much special interest influence public sector unions have in politics.

 

I think you have zero understanding of labor unions and the positive economic influence they have in this country. But its obvious your not going to change your position nor am i prepared to change mine.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

There is no positive economic influence. I explained to you in irrefutable economic terms why they raise unemployment. It is the same reason a minimum wage increases unemployment. The idea that you can raise everyones ship by moving more resources to just a few of them is just assinine.

 

I'd say (material) wealth tends to be like a pie, at any particular moment in time, and if you have the total (material) wealth in a country at one time, 10 years from then, it'll probably be roughly the same. But sometimes, such as during the industrial revolution and introduction of computers and then the introduction of the internet, material wealth can change quickly

 

You show disdain for empirical evidence, again. Unions are frequently found to increase productivity.

You perhaps haven't bothered with the economics. The standard model of unionisation, the efficiency bargain, refers to how they increase employment.

This again shows no understanding of economics. The minimum wage is quite distinct from union effects. At worst it represents a reduction in the inefficiency generated by monopsony. It therefore enables a welfare-improving redistribution of inefficient economic rents

 

I thought the evidence was rather mixed between Monopoly union model and Efficient contracting? Perhaps this ambiguous results can be explained by using game theory to model bargaining, which predicts results somewhere in the middle of the two models.

I thought unionization was another way to combat monopsony?

 

Private Unions are needed but their powers should be regulated.

Public employee Unions on the other hand should be outlawed. Why? Because it is the taxpayer that pays for it via government workers, and they have become so big and powerfull, that the government and the taxpayer has no influence or say in what those Unions do and how they manage or account for taxpayer's money.

We the people should have a say and a vote on how tax money is spent or managed by government. That is why we get to vote for public officials. But when the government empolyee Public union manipulates and bullies the officials we elect, we have no control and no say in what unions and government does. And that is a communist system that is controled by a select few who are givin power by those who profit off them.

That is why the USA will continue to fail economically. Just look at your individual State, and see how the pubic unions of the educations system manipulate your media, and your politicians.

And you all wonder why the educations system of the USA sucks himey.

 

It is. If I remember it right, efficient bargaining is more suited to US history and the monopoly union to the UK. It of course gets even more complex when we refer to the consequences of internal labour markets and the impact of human resource management techniques (e.g. seniority and its impact on the median voter and therefore union preferences)

We can't make that evaluation. Wage norms can simply mean redistribution from one worker to another (with underpayment, for some, possibly magnified)

 

People completely misunderstand these terms. I believe you mean a "At-will employment state".

ALL states are "at will employment", you can quite anytime, your employer can fire you anytime without cause, unless the two of you have made an implicit or explicit contract otherwise. Some states have an exception for "the public good", where you can be required to keep working at your job because of public need, an emergency or other issue, sometimes a good reason, like Katrina, sometimes BAD reasons, like Bush FORCING the Longshoremen to stay at work.

A "right to work state" says you cannot be required to join a union even though the union is getting you the raises and benefits it is getting all the other workers at a company.

 

It is RARE or non-existent for union leadership to be corrupt these days. Even back when organized crime had been involved, most unions were not corrupt.

The members regularly elect the leadership. Now that communication is good, it is very hard to hide theft and corrpution.

If there is lots of "decent paying jobs", then unions should disappear of their own accord!

of coruse, without unions there will NEVER be "lots of decent-paying jobs". The ONLY reason we had decent paying jobs in America was the upward pressure on wages and benefits from the unions. Management and engineers etc. people needed to be paid more than the workers on the line, so their wages were increased by the unions as well.

if you look around the world, those countries with no unions pa almost ALL of their workers at most levels except the very top poorly, and thus have a very small middle class.

Just like what is happening in the USA.

WHAT "special union benefits"? Unions still do not get the benefits management gets, what is special about the contracts the unions negotiate with the public employer? Except they make for a reasonably good job with retirement. That WAS not "special" in the USA until recently!

The ONLY reason that can happen in the public sector is because the politicians GAVE it to them!

The problem is easily avoided by simply electing politicians who say NO to union requests, which happens regularly and is happening now, in Wisconsin, in Ohio, everywhere. There would be no problem except the right is trying to take away the Constitutional rights of people to organize together if they are workers! (It is somehow OK if they are corporations or PACS or political parties or lobbyists, though! )

Actually, the pension system you speak of is for a "special retirement" for public safety employees in California and that WAS NOT the result of unions, it was a result of a SPECIAL INITIATIVE ELECTION, voted into law by the voters of California!

Don't like it? Have another election! Sheesh! Getting rid of unions will NOT get rid of the law!

 

Their powers ARE regulated! Don't you remember
Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers? Bush ordering the Longshoremen Union back to work? Court orders banning walkouts all across the country?

The public unions are still a tiny part of the electorate, and they have NO power or pay that an elected politician does not GIVE to them by contract!

They have power for the same reason that Corporations and lobbyists have power, (many of them paid by the government), that Pro-Lifers have power, that Tea Partiers have power.

Taking away the right off ANY worker ANYWHERE to organize is simply un Cosntitutional in EVERY way, and it amazes me so many Conservatives, Tea Partiers, and patriots are so happy to propose illegal laws.

The only reason your public officials are "bullied" is because they are cooperating with a small organized group, and no one cared how much money the politicians spent when times were good.

Now, unions are cutting wages and benefits all across the country, but the true special interests want to gut groups that are for working people.

Simple propaganda. They no longer influence anywhere nearly as much as self serving business interests manipulate the media, education systems, and the politicians.

Tell you what, let's ban not just unions, but ALL organizations, ALL corporate lobbyists, ALL corporate contributions to politicians or their campaigns, PACs, the whole thing. Just to be fair.

EACH person can send their letter to their officials, their maximum $50 donation, and their vote on election day. If a politician takes even a cup of coffee or a corn dog from a business or lobbying group before, during, or after their term in office, they go to jail.

Simple and equitable.

 

DeathStar , in many important ways , the right of workers to organise into a labor union raises the standard of living for these workers and benefits the entire community , so why would you want to outlaw that ?

 

I love that story. And, Al Capone ran soup kitchens in the depths of the depression.

I don't wish to outlaw unions but I wish they were held accountable for the crimes they commit.

 

what crimes would that be ?

 

As long as employers continue to exploit workers and conduct unfair practices in the workplace, unions will always be around.

Having worked union my entire life, I can attest to the benefits of collective bargaining. Its the only way i'd want to work.

 

well said and true GameWell , and it's great to hear a fellow voice of sanity and reason here on PF

I too am strong Union , worked in a paper mill , and the PACE -AFL-CIO Union Local 1971 meant a good wage and safe working conditions , ain't nothing wrong with that , Good Unions help everyone, , a better way of Life ..

 

Geez, don't you watch the movies?

Al Capone LIVES at the SEIU!

 

How do employees exploit employees? Don't we have labor laws?

I have knowledge of two examples of union workers, one in the last few weeks:

The first was when I was working construction and the company won a job contract up north, the electrical company that I worked for was non-union but many of the other companies were union. We were harassed by the union members, our company was picketed, vehicles were damaged, and we were having to stop work to allow the union companies (welders and concrete) to catch up to where they were supposed to be.

The second was for a contract my company had. The company we were working for was building two identical facilities, one in a non union area and one in a non union area. The construction for the facility in the non union area started two months after the one in the union area, it is now complete while the one in the union area has another 2-4 months because of union labor requiring 3-4 different crews to do something that one or two people should be able to complete. Not to mention the lack of care for keeping the facility clean and free of damage.

Unions were at once needed but of the time now they are an unnecessary burden in most fields. I do not advocate getting rid of unions because we have the right to assemble but many unions represent members that use their membership as a pass to be lazy and get as little work done as possible.

Public sector unions are another story, they are dangerous as they are paid with my tax dollars and then they redistribute their dues to politicians that give them raises, this is poor cycle that is leaning to the pension crises happening across the US.

 

Always nice to see a fellow union brother in here who understands the working man's issues.

 

yep , Dave your prolly right ...

it right next to the last 3 years of GOP swift-boat Congressional grid-lok videos on you-tube ...

 

Extortion, assault, murder, theft, vandalism, bombings, arson, child endagerment. Well, to cut it short, I've never heard of unions poisoning or approving of the poisoning of puppies.

 

As long as unions are a form of organized crime which have massive political support and make the criminals wealthy, unions will be around.

 

The existence of closed shops wrecks this idea. Those unions will never disappear because membership is mandatory.

Now if all union membership was strictly voluntary, we'd have a good measure of how good or bad working conditions really are.