True story.
About 15 years ago a close friend of mine was hired to work for the NY Daily News as a plant manager.The News had some problems with the union employees in the shipping plant. The work was simply not getting done, and people were literally sleeping on the job on benches in the warehouse. They operated like this because the union was their protector and unions promote laziness. The management had enough and started to crack down on the union employees and the first thing they did was remove the benches which created a huge uproar from the employees. Needless to say, other measures were taken to improve production and eventually there was a strike.
The striking workers were literally a MOB. The workers who were hired to replace them were harrassed and beaten, the managers needed police protection to enter the building, the drivers went out on strike to show solidarity with their union brothers and they vandalized the delivery trucks and beat up the drivers along their routes. The police mostly stood ildy by unless they were eyewitnesses to the violence. The News brought in a strike breaking team to protect their employees and eventually the strike ended with the unions making huge concessions, but not before many people were sent to the emergency room and tens of thousands of dollars in property damages.
The moral of the story is simple. Unions are no good. Just one more socialist idea that gained strength under the worst U.S. president ever, FDR. We know of course that the most heavily unionized industries in America are struggling as a direct result of their union burdens and yet the dems want to make it easier for unions to organize and intimidate.
Beneath the lipstick, this pig is a clear payoff to the unions from congressional Democrats. With membership plunging — from 37% of the private work force in 1960 to 20.6% in 1980 to 7.4% last year — unions are desperate to save themselves. Democrats, whose party exists largely because of union donations in time and money, are willing accomplices, even if it means violating workers' right to vote in secret, free of coercion.
14 comments:
You already know both mine and my familys history with unions, the Teamsters specifically -- so I wont go off on a lenghty diatribe and just say that I agree.
How touching that the Republican Party and Investors magazine are so concerned with workers rights.
One view is that *part* of how America became such a powerhouse in such a short period of time though is attributed to the fact that workers fought for higher wages collectively which made the gap larger and larger between the typical American and say, the third world workers.
The higher wages led to far more expendable income, leading to the purchase of homes, investment in communities,material goods, and eventually to the upward mobility of the lowest classes. And of course, investment in corporations, the ability of the average Joe to save, participate in stocks, and so on. People put money in banks to be lent.
When people get low wages, it increases the costs of senior care, public health, and welfare. A little more income means that you can save for your old age or have a buffer when you lose a job. In America, we had relatively lax welfare AND high wages compared. Now people dont worry about anything. Now they buy a mercedes instead of saving for their old age. They count on unemployment,social security, food stamps, etc. and save nothing.
Anyway,
Some argue that without "going public", and without the ability to spread the risk around of shareholding- alot of corporate America might not be here today at all. Not all union achievements were bad for America.
Some say that the higher wages are what propelled this country forward, the higher education made possible by higher standards of living and work hour limits and child labor rules made America what it is today. Who fought for that? Labor.
Higher wages are not just a way to redistribute profits from a capitalist elite,or a way to wrangle benefits from the entrepreneur. I agree THAT is socialist.But,it was for a time also a way to generate money in the economy. More people made, more they spent. And look at us today.
If the workers weren't buying from China, it might still be ok in theory. Now its time to move away from it.
Its gone too far the other way, unions protect abusive workers and add to public sector inefficiency. (understatement)No argument on that. Thats why everyone wants the private contractor to provide service now. I've been in PEF, CSEA, SEIU, Teamsters (shut up) and UFCW. Most of us had no choice. Unions will be international or gone soon.
American industry will be international if unions are not gone soon.
American industry is international now and will be international regardless of unions. The world is getting smaller and nothing can change that now.
Eventually I think workers in third-world countries will also attempt to unionize. They will be fired, jailed, and even killed. Just as happened here in the early years of the labor movement.
Short of electing Buchanan as President I fear you are right Rhino.
Donkeyhue what exactly could Buchanan do to stop it?
Nobody has even addressed the disgraceful trade imbalance and the currency exchanges are corrupt/distorted by every economist's admission but there seems to be little leverage to address that either.
If corporations are multinational. what can Buchanan propose?
Seriously, what could he do if elected?
If you love the free market why not love the freedom to go hire kids in China? To close up a factory where the health costs of your unhealthy whining employees have gone up like crazy?
Thats capitalism! Thats a consequence. Surely you dont want the government to tell a company where to go or do like some hippie socialist?
Share what Buchanan offers.
Well first of all it should be obvious that I am not a "free marketer" in the sense that I believe in fair markets first and foremost, of which every trade agreement we are in is not, and decidedly-one sided against American interests.
My problem is that the free market is often used as a cover for American charity.
The first step is to walk away from NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO etc.
If that makes me a protectionist, then so be it.
Im sorry I meant neo-protectionist.
We are not just talking about higher wages. We are talking about high wages out of proportion to the employee's worth. A union insists that the worst workers are paid the same as the really good workers. And makes it expensive and nearly impossible to correct hiring mistakes.
Then there are health costs of the lazy workers who often lie about back injuries and evry other thing under the sun. Then we have ridiculous pensions that are breaking the backs of every unionized business in America and Europe. Firemen for instance, here in Oakland some of them are making over 100,000 a year in over time. The supervisors in the fire dept are pulling in 200,000. If you make that much money you should have to save for your own damn retirement. What's 10,000 a year of the top for Christ's sake?
The pension system is stupid and does not encourage people to save for their own retirement. Remember when people did that and scrimped and saved and paid for their own kid's college too? Now people claim to hate corporations but expect their employers to be their mommy and daddy. All this just for doing the most minimal of work. Modified duties half the effing time. I can't save for myself so I want you to do it for me, wah wah. Now there are no more jobs. Car companies, kaput! Airlines with high pension and health costs, history! Way to go unions, great job!
Actually I agree on the trade AND many of Miss C's points, I was just trying to point out that perhaps-to some people- as we became increasingly developed they had their place and served some positive purposes such as on safety.
Honestly, I thought it was discouraging to work hard for the same pay as the do-nothing next to me. The reward is that you get their work. But not more money. So human nature, being what it is...people are encouraged to do the least I think.
Not good if the public pays the tab. Where is the outrage when services are bad though? Cant say a thing.
all excellent points miss c. which is why i sometimes argue that to a certain extent, unions in the united states have actually been overly successful and therefore are irrelevant. which is not to say that in areas where workers are being exploited, harassed or subject to unsafe conditions, i would not support an all-out workers movement.
Anita, and I agree with your point made long ago, that Unions at one time did serve a valuable function. But they are stuck on stupid now and they can't see it. In an increasingly competetive global economy the unions are just screwing Americans out of jobs. The have to face up to reality. Eventually Americans will be so desperate to get jobs they may have to just settle for really bad working conditions. The Unions are mad because they are losing dues and membership is all.
I saw a program on the news that said that the Unions have hired a bunch of illegals to work in the Mississippi area to rebuild after the hurricane, because they can't find Americans who want to work there. Of course the Union is taking some of these people's money from them, so it is in their interest. Too bad an illegal organizer could not name himself negotiator and demand that the employees receive all the money for their work and tell the unions to go to hell. Unions have ruined the lives of average American workers and now they are organizing the illegals.
They opened a Wal-Mart here and over 15,000 people applied. Now the Unions would have you believe that working for Wal-Mart is tantamount to slavery. But people who want jobs know the difference. If the unions had been at all reasonable in the first place this would not be the state of affairs.
Post a Comment