In response to:

The Fall of the House of Labor

morgandog Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 11:54 AM
people need to be reminded that a union is everyone who works in a particular location. it is not just three or four people. all of these people vote on their contract and either accept if or reject it. the old, "majority rules" axiom. just like how DC and State Leg. operates. I guess the American worker, the most productive worker in the world, who wants a better life for his family and has built some of the most awesome buildings, bridges and structures the world has ever seen, is nothing but a "thug" because he asks for a raise and better benefits. ever seen the new bridge at Hoover Dam? UNION WORKERS BUILT THAT!!!
Corbett_ Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:03 PM

Unions are pro-union. They exist to feather the nests of the union bosses. They are anti-worker. As I pointed out, they attack replacement WORKERS whenever there is a strike. They do whatever they can to keep anyone who is not paying union dues out of a job.
Corbett_ Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:00 PM
Ousider -- I work for a company with a union, though I am not a member. The union protects the worthless slackers and the incompetents. Those who actually get out there and hustle don't need or want a union. Employers have too much invested in their employees to arbitrarily fire the productive ones. Having the union "protect" the worthless just hurts everyone.
ksatifka Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:14 PM
OneForFreedom -- Workers in highly skilled professions, such as yourself, have never needed unions as much as the rank and file worker on the floor - whether it be in a factory or office. Workers who are considered semi-skilled can be replaced fairly easily. It is these workers most in need of a union to prevent arbitrary dismissal by an employer. Again, if you want to keep your job in a totally non-union environment, you'd better keep your mouth shut (this may also apply to engineers as all can be replaced). Workplaces are not democracies.
OneForFreedom Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:05 PM
Outsider - perhaps it depends on the field you're in. I'm an engineer, and have worked in union and non-union companies. Doesn't matter to me, because there's no such thing as an engineers union. And unions have nothing to do with my pay scale, it's all supply and demand.
ksatifka Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:58 PM
Corbett -- To say that unions are 'anti-worker' is nuts. I used to work in an 'agency' shop where no one was forced to join the union, but they had to at least pay a fee for the cost of union representaion. To eliminate these fees is the death of the union as most will not then join. Such people may be saving a little money in the short-term, but it will cost them long-term. Without a union, the employer has all control and can fire someone just because they don't like the way they look. Don't dare open your mouth if you want to work for a non-union employer.
Corbett_ Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:35 PM
Morgan -- no one says that people should not be allowed to unionize. But it is wrong to FORCE people to join a union. And if people are not forced to do so, many fewer will find a union in their best interest.

Unions have ALWAYS been anti-worker. Look at what happens when they go on strike. They do not attack the management. They attack replacement workers.

In 1958, Senate Minority Leader William Knowland, his eye on the 1960 GOP nomination coveted by fellow Californian Richard Nixon, went home and declared for governor.

Knowland's plan: Ride to victory on the back of Proposition 18, the initiative to make right-to-work the law in the Golden Land. Prop. 18 was rejected 2 to 1. Knowland's career was over, and the Republicans were decimated nationally for backing right-to-work.

Badly burned, the party for years ran away from the issue.

This history makes what happened in Michigan, cradle of the United Auto Workers, astonishing. A GOP legislature passed and Gov....