Rush mentioned this web site today. Apparently new reporting requirements are shedding a lot of light on the activities of unions.

A small sample


   *   Nearly $1.5 million in union members’ dues money was spent on golf.
   * The Ironworkers AFL-CIO Local Union 40 spent $52,879 on a new Cadillac for a retiring president.
   * $7.9 million of employee dues money went to resort expenditures.
   * The Boilermakers AFL-CIO Local 374 spent $8,800 of employee dues money on Christmas gifts at Wal-Mart, despite the labor movement’s smear campaign against the retailer.
   * Between six AFL-CIO locals, over $50,000 of employee dues money was spent at a single D.C. steakhouse.
   * The AFL-CIO alone spent over $49 million on political activities and lobbying—much of which is spent quietly on in-kind political expenditures like pro-Kerry brochures and websites. That’s almost $20 million more than it spent on representation activities.

They're just looking out for the working man, you see.

bump

in before the apologists

Quoted: in before the apologists

Who but the most ignorant would apologize for the misdeeds of union leadership?

What the very few of us who see both sides often have to say is that unions are a necessary evil, and no more bad than industry as a whole is good. They are what they are, flawed, and corrupt, but still better than a world with all the power in the hands of business.

Ever read a history book? Good. Then you know what the world was like for workers before organized labor. Care to go skipping back to those times? Then click your heels together and let the benevolent captains of industry decide how you work, and for how much with no counterbalance.

Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason.

Quoted: Quoted: in before the apologists Who but the most ignorant would apologize for the misdeeds of union leadership? What the very few of us who see both sides often have to say is that unions are a necessary evil, and no more bad than industry as a whole is good. They are what they are, flawed, and corrupt, but still better than a world with all the power in the hands of business. Ever read a history book? Good. Then you know what the world was like for workers before organized labor. Care to go skipping back to those times? Then click your heels together and let the benevolent captains of industry decide how you work, and for how much with no counterbalance. Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason.

They're no longer necessary, just evil.

They rape the guys who work their ass off.
But If you make a comment about it you "are bucking the Union" and branded a "trouble maker" and thus not sent out on "Union " jobs

Quoted: Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason.

That reason has come and gone. Damned skippy we needed them back in the day, but now they are nothing but a liability.

Worst than that is the several hundred million dollars the unions give to the Democrats each election time.

The Democrats are then elected and then pass laws to take away our rights to keep and bear arms.

Unions suck!

Quoted: Quoted: Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason. That reason has come and gone. Damned skippy we needed them back in the day, but now they are nothing but a liability.

I'm not disagreeing that they are fucked now, and that they do not serve the workers, but just to illustrate a point, we have a company like Scotts Co. (plant food) firing workers for smoking - not at work but at home. Sound a little Henry Ford to you? This is modern America, where the Union no longer needs to exist....and even here in capitalist utopia employers are encroaching on our freedom. Quit and find a new job you say? Well, what happens when they all follow the industry leader and uniformly adopt such bullshit policies? That's precisely how the industrial revolution squashed the working family. The captains of industy set the standard, and the rest of business followed. Bad for everyone.....but just "quit if you don't like it", right?

Imagine business and industry WITHOUT any counter balance at all, none. If you honestly don't see how the general climate of employer/worker would tip in the wrong direction without even the threat of unionization, then you my friend are using the exact some line of thinking that peaceniks use for nuclear disarmament.

Think about it. Nukes serve no purpose, we haven't used one in over 60 years, and we're not about to start, so they serve NO purpose. Right?

I don't have a fix, but I'm not buying the Republican propoganda that Unions should go the way of the dodo. That's incredibly short-sighted, from a historical standpoint.

Quoted: Worst than that is the several hundred million dollars the unions give to the Democrats each election time. The Democrats are then elected and then pass laws to take away our rights to keep and bear arms. Unions suck!

There was a big thing about this when Algore lost. It was said, within our union, at least, that the Democratic stance on gun control cost them a lot of votes from union workers. Our union magazine has a huge monthly pictorial showing members' hunting trophies. I'd imagine that not many of them are willing to sacrifice their gun rights for perceived support of Labor, myself included. The magazine even had an article chastising the members for thinking that Algore was anti-gun...

WRT the original topic of the wasting of union funds, there was a big scandal in our main union (not the local) where the President had squandered our pension money and redirected it to build himself a hotel and golf course in Florida. Despite this, he was "re-elected..." He has since been outed, but they had to BUY him out. I doubt that it was in any of the newspapers.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason. That reason has come and gone. Damned skippy we needed them back in the day, but now they are nothing but a liability. I'm not disagreeing that they are fucked now, and that they do not serve the workers, but just to illustrate a point, we have a company like Scotts Co. (plant food) firing workers for smoking - not at work but at home. Sound a little Henry Ford to you? This is modern America, where the Union no longer needs to exist....and even here in capitalist utopia employers are encroaching on our freedom. Quit and find a new job you say? Well, what happens when they all follow the industry leader and uniformly adopt such bullshit policies? That's precisely how the industrial revolution squashed the working family. The captains of industy set the standard, and the rest of business followed. Bad for everyone.....but just "quit if you don't like it", right? Imagine business and industry WITHOUT any counter balance at all, none. If you honestly don't see how the general climate of employer/worker would tip in the wrong direction without even the threat of unionization, then you my friend are using the exact some line of thinking that peaceniks use for nuclear disarmament. Think about it. Nukes serve no purpose, we haven't used one in over 60 years, and we're not about to start, so they serve NO purpose. Right? I don't have a fix, but I'm not buying the Republican propoganda that Unions should go the way of the dodo. That's incredibly short-sighted, from a historical standpoint.

Actually, your opinion is short sighted from a historical standpoint.

Things have a way of working themselves out. And for whatever reason you don't want to see that.

Every employer adopts a no smoking policy.  Super. Guess what the people who want to smoke can do? Start their own damn company!

It may take awhile, it may not be easy, but that's their RIGHT to do it! You don't strip away the rights of one group to give rights to another. That's what unions do with the help of the government.

What is needed is completely free decision making. It may be tough for the employees at times, and it may be tough for employers at times. Those times may fluctuate. What harms the process in both ways is the thumb of the government tipping the scales.

It has swung way towards unions now, and you can see how that has hurt the workers in the end (outsourcing, lost jobs, Big 3 dying, etc). Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government.

Eliminate the ability of both unions and employers to buy power and favorable laws in congress, and then you will see a truly dynamic employment market where both entitites are free to act in their best interest. That's what should happen instead of being in favor of more rules and regulations from congress to 'protect' everybody.

I think the trouble with unions is they are stuck in the 19th century. As in politics, power corrupts. I agree with swingset, they do serve a purpose; However they are made up of "people." Sometimes failable, often self-serving, and very often grossly ineffective. Unfortunately, I've seen unions cause more harm than good in my experience.
I once knew a union president to "stand his ground" in negotiations with a failing company. In a nutshell; The company's product line was obsolete.  Area was poverty stricken, not a lot of jobs. Average wage at this company was well over $15 per hour.  Company asks for a pay cut for for a year to help with expenses of retooling. Union refuses.("We've always made "whatnots" that's a company problem!") Company closes after over 100 years. Relocates to neighboring state(who offered generous tax incentives) changes product line, and makes the new product. I think there were close to 100 jobs lost.
I think this happened because of the mistrust between the company and the union.

I imagine the unions were  needed in the age of the "robber barons." I think in the information age they're a little redundant.

JMHO & YMMV



Hessian-1
 

Quoted: I think the trouble with unions is they are stuck in the 19th century. As in politics, power corrupts. I agree with swingset, they do serve a purpose; However they are made up of "people." Sometimes failable, often self-serving, and very often grossly ineffective. Unfortunately, I've seen unions cause more harm than good in my experience. I once knew a union president to "stand his ground" in negotiations with a failing company. In a nutshell; The company's product line was obsolete.  Area was poverty stricken, not a lot of jobs. Average wage at this company was well over $15 per hour.  Company asks for a pay cut for for a year to help with expenses of retooling. Union refuses.("We've always made "whatnots" that's a company problem!") Company closes after over 100 years. Relocates to neighboring state(who offered generous tax incentives) changes product line, and makes the new product. I think there were close to 100 jobs lost. I think this happened because of the mistrust between the company and the union. I imagine the unions were  needed in the age of the "robber barons." I think in the information age they're a little redundant. JMHO & YMMV Hessian-1

Here's a little info on todays "robber barons". For or against In my line of work the unions are a necessary evil


The Florida Times-Union
March 22, 2006
CSX CEO rakes in $22.6 million
In a year in which Jacksonville-based railroad CSX Corp. earned $1.145
billion -- more than double its earnings from the year before -- its
chief executive officer raked in $22.6 million in total compensation.

That figure includes $19.9 million in cash and stock earned as part of
the company's long-term incentive package, which covered both 2004 and
2005. Over those two years, a key measure tracked by the company based
upon operating income increased by 56 percent, triggering the
multi-million dollar payout.

The company does not generally offer stock options or have other award
systems utilizing stock.

The rest of CEO Michael Ward's compensation came from his $947,792 base
salary and $1.8 million bonus, the largest bonus he's received since
taking the reins of the company in 2003, according to a document filed
with the Security and Exchange Commission.

Most of the company's peers have not filed the documents required by the
SEC, although they are expected to be turned in later this week.
The other railroad that did file, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway,
reported that its CEO earned $5.9 million in 2005, including a $1.1
million base salary, $2.5 million bonus and $2.2 million in stock and
stock options.

The BNSF chief, Matthew Rose, was the highest paid of the big railroad
executives in 2004, bringing in $11 million, followed by Norfolk
Southern CEO David Goode, who earned a total of $10.2 million. That
year, Ward was the caboose on the train, earning a total of $2.1
million.

CSX's stock closed at $58.62 Monday, down 95 cents or 1.6 percent.


Canadian Natl Railway CEO Got $3.85M Bonus For 2005
Dow Jones Newswires
March 21, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Canadian National Railway Co. (CNI) reported on Tuesday
that Chief Executive E. Hunter Harrison received a $3.85 million bonus
for 2005, up from his 2004 bonus of $3.5 million.

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Harrison also received a $17.3 million long-term incentive payout for
2005, compared with a $1.59 million long-term incentive payout for 2004.

The 2005 award payout was based on performance-based restricted units
awarded in 2004 that were accelerated when specified performance targets
were met. The 2005 long-term incentive payout was increased to the
maximum allowable amount of 120% of the grant.

Harrison got a $1.38 million salary for 2005, compared with a $1.25
million salary in 2004, the filing said.

Shares of the transcontinental railroad company closed at $46.33, up 4
cents from Monday's closing price.

(Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Fun to watch, though, especially for students of logic!)

Quoted: (Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Fun to watch, though, especially for students of logic!)

Uh, no. People can see how damaging unions are -- well, except for people who are in unions.

Public employee unions are the worst of all.

Quoted: Quoted: I think the trouble with unions is they are stuck in the 19th century. As in politics, power corrupts. I agree with swingset, they do serve a purpose; However they are made up of "people." Sometimes failable, often self-serving, and very often grossly ineffective. Unfortunately, I've seen unions cause more harm than good in my experience. I once knew a union president to "stand his ground" in negotiations with a failing company. In a nutshell; The company's product line was obsolete.  Area was poverty stricken, not a lot of jobs. Average wage at this company was well over $15 per hour.  Company asks for a pay cut for for a year to help with expenses of retooling. Union refuses.("We've always made "whatnots" that's a company problem!") Company closes after over 100 years. Relocates to neighboring state(who offered generous tax incentives) changes product line, and makes the new product. I think there were close to 100 jobs lost. I think this happened because of the mistrust between the company and the union. I imagine the unions were  needed in the age of the "robber barons." I think in the information age they're a little redundant. JMHO & YMMV Hessian-1   Here's a little info on todays "robber barons". For or against In my line of work the unions are a necessary evil The Florida Times-Union March 22, 2006 CSX CEO rakes in $22.6 million In a year in which Jacksonville-based railroad CSX Corp. earned $1.145 billion -- more than double its earnings from the year before -- its chief executive officer raked in $22.6 million in total compensation. That figure includes $19.9 million in cash and stock earned as part of the company's long-term incentive package, which covered both 2004 and 2005. Over those two years, a key measure tracked by the company based upon operating income increased by 56 percent, triggering the multi-million dollar payout. The company does not generally offer stock options or have other award systems utilizing stock. The rest of CEO Michael Ward's compensation came from his $947,792 base salary and $1.8 million bonus, the largest bonus he's received since taking the reins of the company in 2003, according to a document filed with the Security and Exchange Commission. Most of the company's peers have not filed the documents required by the SEC, although they are expected to be turned in later this week. The other railroad that did file, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, reported that its CEO earned $5.9 million in 2005, including a $1.1 million base salary, $2.5 million bonus and $2.2 million in stock and stock options. The BNSF chief, Matthew Rose, was the highest paid of the big railroad executives in 2004, bringing in $11 million, followed by Norfolk Southern CEO David Goode, who earned a total of $10.2 million. That year, Ward was the caboose on the train, earning a total of $2.1 million. CSX's stock closed at $58.62 Monday, down 95 cents or 1.6 percent. Canadian Natl Railway CEO Got $3.85M Bonus For 2005 Dow Jones Newswires March 21, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Canadian National Railway Co. (CNI) reported on Tuesday that Chief Executive E. Hunter Harrison received a $3.85 million bonus for 2005, up from his 2004 bonus of $3.5 million. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Harrison also received a $17.3 million long-term incentive payout for 2005, compared with a $1.59 million long-term incentive payout for 2004. The 2005 award payout was based on performance-based restricted units awarded in 2004 that were accelerated when specified performance targets were met. The 2005 long-term incentive payout was increased to the maximum allowable amount of 120% of the grant. Harrison got a $1.38 million salary for 2005, compared with a $1.25 million salary in 2004, the filing said. Shares of the transcontinental railroad company closed at $46.33, up 4 cents from Monday's closing price.

Wow, so a head of a company makes a lot of money. They must be evil!

It seems the root of union power is based on jealousy.

And it always amazes me that union members think people who dislike unions are somehow jealous of them. Well, amuses me more than amazes me.

Quoted: Quoted: I think the trouble with unions is they are stuck in the 19th century. As in politics, power corrupts. I agree with swingset, they do serve a purpose; However they are made up of "people." Sometimes failable, often self-serving, and very often grossly ineffective. Unfortunately, I've seen unions cause more harm than good in my experience. I once knew a union president to "stand his ground" in negotiations with a failing company. In a nutshell; The company's product line was obsolete.  Area was poverty stricken, not a lot of jobs. Average wage at this company was well over $15 per hour.  Company asks for a pay cut for for a year to help with expenses of retooling. Union refuses.("We've always made "whatnots" that's a company problem!") Company closes after over 100 years. Relocates to neighboring state(who offered generous tax incentives) changes product line, and makes the new product. I think there were close to 100 jobs lost. I think this happened because of the mistrust between the company and the union. I imagine the unions were  needed in the age of the "robber barons." I think in the information age they're a little redundant. JMHO & YMMV Hessian-1   Here's a little info on todays "robber barons". For or against In my line of work the unions are a necessary evil The Florida Times-Union March 22, 2006 CSX CEO rakes in $22.6 million In a year in which Jacksonville-based railroad CSX Corp. earned $1.145 billion -- more than double its earnings from the year before -- its chief executive officer raked in $22.6 million in total compensation. ...

So the CEO doubles the earnings, gets less than 2% of the earnings as a bonus and he's a robber barron?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think the trouble with unions is they are stuck in the 19th century. As in politics, power corrupts. I agree with swingset, they do serve a purpose; However they are made up of "people." Sometimes failable, often self-serving, and very often grossly ineffective. Unfortunately, I've seen unions cause more harm than good in my experience. I once knew a union president to "stand his ground" in negotiations with a failing company. In a nutshell; The company's product line was obsolete.  Area was poverty stricken, not a lot of jobs. Average wage at this company was well over $15 per hour.  Company asks for a pay cut for for a year to help with expenses of retooling. Union refuses.("We've always made "whatnots" that's a company problem!") Company closes after over 100 years. Relocates to neighboring state(who offered generous tax incentives) changes product line, and makes the new product. I think there were close to 100 jobs lost. I think this happened because of the mistrust between the company and the union. I imagine the unions were  needed in the age of the "robber barons." I think in the information age they're a little redundant. JMHO & YMMV Hessian-1   Here's a little info on todays "robber barons". For or against In my line of work the unions are a necessary evil The Florida Times-Union March 22, 2006 CSX CEO rakes in $22.6 million In a year in which Jacksonville-based railroad CSX Corp. earned $1.145 billion -- more than double its earnings from the year before -- its chief executive officer raked in $22.6 million in total compensation. ... So the CEO doubles the earnings, gets less than 2% of the earnings as a bonus and he's a robber barron?

Jealousy, pure and simple.

Fact is,without these 'robber barons', union hacks wouldn't have a job - unless they sucked off the government teet as a public employee.

Face it, if you're in the lower rungs of a company, like union employees generally are, you're pretty much interchangable with anyone who can has the training or can be trained. That's millions and millions of people. That's why their compensation is what it is.

Having the talent, intelligence, imagination and courage to run a successful multi million or multi-billion dollar business is a rare skillset. That's why they're paid so much.

Of course, the principle of supply and demand generally isn't recognized by (most) union members.

Quoted: Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government...

Yeah, and while we're at it lets abolish that socialist minimum wage law. Why should I have to pay my employees $5.15 per hour if there is someone willing to do the job for $2.00 an hour?

Quoted: Quoted: Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government... Yeah, and while we're at it lets abolish that socialist minimum wage law. Why should I have to pay my employees $5.15 per hour if there is someone willing to do the job for $2.00 an hour?

Sarcasm coming from someone who doesn't understand economics.

Google "minimum wage, maximum folly" by walter E Williams.

Minimum wage harms the people it claims to hurt. It prices lower skilled workers out of the first-rung jobs, because their skills are currently under the minimum price it takes to employ them. So instead of getting their foot in the door, they get left outside.

Quoted: Quoted: (Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Fun to watch, though, especially for students of logic!) Uh, no. People can see how damaging unions are -- well, except for people who are in unions. Public employee unions are the worst of all.

Isn't that just about the same thing I said?

I can see a lot of the problems with unions, even the issues I previously mentioned that were poisoning my own union. I just don't think it's rational to generalize about ALL unions (I belong to a skilled trade, not a public employee union; I can empathize with your feelings on this.). That is like saying that everyone who has a gun is a criminal. Please don't lump me in with, say, the teacher's unions and such.

I'm merely stating my own position. People who want to continually cry about it here in thread after thread are beating a dead horse. It in no way affects me (as if I'd be brow-beaten into submission and quitting the union so I can go work for minimum wage while all you white-collar workers pocket all the savings). How's THAT for generalization?

I've seen the results of my non-union counterparts in action. Sure, they get it done a little cheaper... maybe even a little faster. That's fine, because then I can come along behind them and either finish what they couldn't finish, or redo it so it's right. Unfortunately for them, one thing they lack is a good reputation.

Not meant to sound like a rant, BTW. I'm just saying I can see good points on both sides. It's not as simple as black and white. The idea that unions "are not needed" is short-sighted and preposterous.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government... Yeah, and while we're at it lets abolish that socialist minimum wage law. Why should I have to pay my employees $5.15 per hour if there is someone willing to do the job for $2.00 an hour? Sarcasm coming from someone who doesn't understand economics. Google "minimum wage, maximum folly" by walter E Williams. Minimum wage harms the people it claims to hurt. It prices lower skilled workers out of the first-rung jobs, because their skills are currently under the minimum price it takes to employ them. So instead of getting their foot in the door, they get left outside.

Yep. Minimum wage is a joke. If they offer too low of a pay for a certain type of job, DON'T TAKE IT! If nobody is willing to take it for that low of a wage they will need to pay more for it, supply and demand works both ways.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason. That reason has come and gone. Damned skippy we needed them back in the day, but now they are nothing but a liability. I'm not disagreeing that they are fucked now, and that they do not serve the workers, but just to illustrate a point, we have a company like Scotts Co. (plant food) firing workers for smoking - not at work but at home. Sound a little Henry Ford to you? This is modern America, where the Union no longer needs to exist....and even here in capitalist utopia employers are encroaching on our freedom. Quit and find a new job you say? Well, what happens when they all follow the industry leader and uniformly adopt such bullshit policies? That's precisely how the industrial revolution squashed the working family. The captains of industy set the standard, and the rest of business followed. Bad for everyone.....but just "quit if you don't like it", right? Imagine business and industry WITHOUT any counter balance at all, none. If you honestly don't see how the general climate of employer/worker would tip in the wrong direction without even the threat of unionization, then you my friend are using the exact some line of thinking that peaceniks use for nuclear disarmament. Think about it. Nukes serve no purpose, we haven't used one in over 60 years, and we're not about to start, so they serve NO purpose. Right? I don't have a fix, but I'm not buying the Republican propoganda that Unions should go the way of the dodo. That's incredibly short-sighted, from a historical standpoint. Actually, your opinion is short sighted from a historical standpoint. Things have a way of working themselves out. And for whatever reason you don't want to see that. Every employer adopts a no smoking policy.  Super. Guess what the people who want to smoke can do? Start their own damn company! It may take awhile, it may not be easy, but that's their RIGHT to do it! You don't strip away the rights of one group to give rights to another. That's what unions do with the help of the government. What is needed is completely free decision making. It may be tough for the employees at times, and it may be tough for employers at times. Those times may fluctuate. What harms the process in both ways is the thumb of the government tipping the scales. It has swung way towards unions now, and you can see how that has hurt the workers in the end (outsourcing, lost jobs, Big 3 dying, etc). Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government. Eliminate the ability of both unions and employers to buy power and favorable laws in congress, and then you will see a truly dynamic employment market where both entitites are free to act in their best interest. That's what should happen instead of being in favor of more rules and regulations from congress to 'protect' everybody.

No, again, historically, the ONLY time in the last 1,000 years that the worker has accellerated to political, social and economic richness so completely was shortly after the rise of the modern labor union. And, whala, the standard of living for the entire WORLD rose in short order.

Unions were the solution to MASSIVE and UNIVERSAL oppression and mistreatment of the workers by industry. It doesn't ever "work itself out" in history. It comes to a head, and gets fixed because all along no one righted the sails.

History, buddy, it's your friend. I agree with you on many of your points, but not on the core one which is that without trade unions things "work out" and the worker will eventually come out even. That's polyanna thinking, and it's silly. There's not one shred of historical evidence to show that.

Quoted: Yep. Minimum wage is a joke. If they offer too low of a pay for a certain type of job, DON'T TAKE IT! If nobody is willing to take it for that low of a wage they will need to pay more for it, supply and demand works both ways.

The thing is, there always will be someone there to take that job, no matter how low the pay is. Now, with this influx of illegals and the idea of validating their presence here, a new worker pool has been created.

Sure, this saves a lot of money for the business owners, but are they going to pass this savings on? I doubt that they are going to lower their prices; they are going to keep the extra profits. That is the motivation behind paying a lower wage, not some self-righteous crusade to improve the economy for the good of the nation.

Then what happens when no one is making enough money to buy the products any more? What happens then?

I can't believe I've let my self become drawn into this again.



My opinion isn't going to change, and neither are the opinions of the white collar guys here. The union argument is nothing but an inflammatory topic that cannot be resolved. The whole thing is pointless, aside from its self-serving nature.

Quoted: I can't believe I've let my self become drawn into this again. My opinion isn't going to change, and neither are the opinions of the white collar guys here. The union argument is nothing but an inflammatory topic that cannot be resolved. The whole thing is pointless, aside from its self-serving nature.

Well, union guys always are slow to learn.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason. That reason has come and gone. Damned skippy we needed them back in the day, but now they are nothing but a liability. I'm not disagreeing that they are fucked now, and that they do not serve the workers, but just to illustrate a point, we have a company like Scotts Co. (plant food) firing workers for smoking - not at work but at home. Sound a little Henry Ford to you? This is modern America, where the Union no longer needs to exist....and even here in capitalist utopia employers are encroaching on our freedom. Quit and find a new job you say? Well, what happens when they all follow the industry leader and uniformly adopt such bullshit policies? That's precisely how the industrial revolution squashed the working family. The captains of industy set the standard, and the rest of business followed. Bad for everyone.....but just "quit if you don't like it", right? Imagine business and industry WITHOUT any counter balance at all, none. If you honestly don't see how the general climate of employer/worker would tip in the wrong direction without even the threat of unionization, then you my friend are using the exact some line of thinking that peaceniks use for nuclear disarmament. Think about it. Nukes serve no purpose, we haven't used one in over 60 years, and we're not about to start, so they serve NO purpose. Right? I don't have a fix, but I'm not buying the Republican propoganda that Unions should go the way of the dodo. That's incredibly short-sighted, from a historical standpoint. Actually, your opinion is short sighted from a historical standpoint. Things have a way of working themselves out. And for whatever reason you don't want to see that. Every employer adopts a no smoking policy.  Super. Guess what the people who want to smoke can do? Start their own damn company! It may take awhile, it may not be easy, but that's their RIGHT to do it! You don't strip away the rights of one group to give rights to another. That's what unions do with the help of the government. What is needed is completely free decision making. It may be tough for the employees at times, and it may be tough for employers at times. Those times may fluctuate. What harms the process in both ways is the thumb of the government tipping the scales. It has swung way towards unions now, and you can see how that has hurt the workers in the end (outsourcing, lost jobs, Big 3 dying, etc). Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government. Eliminate the ability of both unions and employers to buy power and favorable laws in congress, and then you will see a truly dynamic employment market where both entitites are free to act in their best interest. That's what should happen instead of being in favor of more rules and regulations from congress to 'protect' everybody. No, again, historically, the ONLY time in the last 1,000 years that the worker has accellerated to political, social and economic richness so completely was shortly after the rise of the modern labor union. And, whala, the standard of living for the entire WORLD rose in short order. Unions were the solution to MASSIVE and UNIVERSAL oppression and mistreatment of the workers by industry. It doesn't ever "work itself out" in history. It comes to a head, and gets fixed because all along no one righted the sails. History, buddy, it's your friend. I agree with you on many of your points, but not on the core one which is that without trade unions things "work out" and the worker will eventually come out even. That's polyanna thinking, and it's silly. There's not one shred of historical evidence to show that.

It's your friend, too. Read 'The myth of the robber barron'  and get some context as to ALL the reasons why unions were put in place, instead of just pontificating on what you think you know.

You see the same mentality here that cuased the unions to be formed: People fear their jobs will be taken by someone who will work for less (in the post civil war days it had a lot to do with racism by those who feared blacks would come up from the south and do their jobs for less). That caused a lot of organizing - just as 'selfish' as those who owned the companies.

Quoted: (Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Fun to watch, though, especially for students of logic!)ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_evilsmile.gif

Nope. Myfirst job out of highschool was in CUPW so I saw how unions stank from the inside.

I left as that company went on strike/lockout, a former Mansville plant. It was on strike for four or five years then it just closed. I think it was over a nickel or a dime an hour. Nice.

Anyone who supports unions, hates capitalism.

Quoted: Quoted: Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason. That reason has come and gone. Damned skippy we needed them back in the day, but now they are nothing but a liability.

That is the same argument that many proponents of gun control say about our firearms. We needed them back in the day but now they are nothing but a liability.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not an apology for unions, just the reality that they exist for a reason. That reason has come and gone. Damned skippy we needed them back in the day, but now they are nothing but a liability. That is the same argument that many proponents of gun control say about our firearms. We needed them back in the day but now they are nothing but a liability.

Unions were only needed back in the day becuase of corrupt polticians and SOME corrupt businessment who would buy politicians and bribe other businesses to get their way.

What was needed then wasn't unions as much as it was the ability to root out the corrupt politicians who would peddle influence or look the other way in exchange for cashola.

Now unions have become just as corrupt as the mythical bad 'robber barrons' of the late 19th century.

Quoted: Anyone who supports unions, hates capitalism.

Quoted: Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument.

Apparently there are those who are fortunate enough to never needed to work in the manufacturing sector.   Capitalism does not need oppression of the working class to survive.  Quayle was so proud of the Job Training Partnership act. ...  It was a program which gave government subsidies to a company for the first few months of employment for low income people.  The problem was that the non-union manufacturing plants would hire new people and then fire them after the government corporate welfare ran out.  This is only 1 example of many abuses.  

Quoted: Unions were only needed back in the day becuase of corrupt polticians and SOME corrupt businessment who would buy politicians and bribe other businesses to get their way. Now unions have become just as corrupt as the mythical bad 'robber barrons' of the late 19th century.

There may be SOME corruption in SOME modern day unions, but they are still a most very necessary institution, especially in this day of rampant outsourcing and benefit raping.

Quoted: Quoted: Anyone who supports unions, hates capitalism. Quoted: Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Apparently there are those who are fortunate enough to never needed to work in the manufacturing sector.

I worked in the manufacturing sector for several months. I hated it.

I didn't ask the government to intervene. I didn't call my employer unfair. I made a choice and quit my job.

It took a couple more months, some othem spent working temp jobs, to find a full time job in an office. Ater first the pay was the same and the hours were longer, but in a few months I was making 50% more than the factory job - and I could actually stand working there all day.

People should spend less time blaming others for their lot in life and more time working on improving their own situations.

Quoted: People should spend less time blaming others for their lot in life and more time working on improving their own situations.

They do...it is called Collective Bargaining...

Quoted: Quoted: Unions were only needed back in the day becuase of corrupt polticians and SOME corrupt businessment who would buy politicians and bribe other businesses to get their way. Now unions have become just as corrupt as the mythical bad 'robber barrons' of the late 19th century. There may be SOME corruption in SOME modern day unions, but they are still a most very necessary institution, especially in this day of rampant outsourcing and benefit raping.

Unions are a prime CAUSE of outsourcing.

And 'benefit raping'? Puh-fucking-lease.  The lavish benefits package created by unions (and some by government regulations going back decades) are the cause of more unemployment and problems than can belisted here.

Companies NEVER should have gotten into the benefits business other than vacation and sick days. Pension plans end up ruining companies (see the Big 3) and employer paid  medical insurance has ended up contributing the the skyrocketing cost of health care.

Employers should pay a straight salary / hourly wage and leave the decisions on pensions and medical insurance up the the individual worker. Lumping everything together and making them an entitlement has been disastrous.

Quoted: Quoted: People should spend less time blaming others for their lot in life and more time working on improving their own situations. They do...it is called Collective Bargaining...

Nice try, but no.

Improving your lot in life means including your marketable skill sets, not threatening to walk out on the job unless your employer pays 100% of your health care costs.

But thanks for illustrating the union mentality. "Improving your own life is done by extorting the other guy".

Quoted: Quoted: (Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Fun to watch, though, especially for students of logic!) Uh, no. People can see how damaging unions are -- well, except for people who are in unions. Public employee unions are the worst of all.

I am in a Public employee union, the IAFF.   No one has to point out the negatives of  a union I can see it all the time.  I can also tell you that the city politicians will cut your balls off the first chance they get.  If it wasn't for the union the fire dept. would be in a world of shit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government... Yeah, and while we're at it lets abolish that socialist minimum wage law. Why should I have to pay my employees $5.15 per hour if there is someone willing to do the job for $2.00 an hour? hr Sarcasm coming from someone who doesn't understand economics. Google "minimum wage, maximum folly" by walter E Williams. Minimum wage harms the people it claims to hurt. It prices lower skilled workers out of the first-rung jobs, because their skills are currently under the minimum price it takes to employ them. So instead of getting their foot in the door, they get left outside.

So, are you saying that I should be able to pay employees $2.00 an hour? How about $1.00 an hour?
Now lets work on getting rid of this pesky OSHA thing and abolishing these antiquated "Child labor laws".
Where does it end? How about if I fire anyone who take a lunch break or calls in sick?

Sadly, it never ends. Why?  Employers will always do whatever it takes to maximize profits. Without the few checks and balances that we have in place, third world style sweatshops would still be the norm.

You think there is a big gap between the upper class and the lower class now?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government... Yeah, and while we're at it lets abolish that socialist minimum wage law. Why should I have to pay my employees $5.15 per hour if there is someone willing to do the job for $2.00 an hour? Sarcasm coming from someone who doesn't understand economics. Google "minimum wage, maximum folly" by walter E Williams. Minimum wage harms the people it claims to hurt. It prices lower skilled workers out of the first-rung jobs, because their skills are currently under the minimum price it takes to employ them. So instead of getting their foot in the door, they get left outside. So, are you saying that I should be able to pay employees $2.00 an hour? How about $1.00 an hour? Now lets work on getting rid of this pesky OSHA thing and abolishing these antiquated "Child labor laws". Where does it end? How about if I fire anyone who take a lunch break or calls in sick? Sadly, it never ends. Why?  Employers will always do whatever it takes to maximize profits. Without the few checks and balances that we have in place, third world style sweatshops would still be the norm. You think there is a big gap between the upper class and the lower class now?

Did you follow my advice and google the article, or are you choosing to remain ignorant???

It looks like you chose the latter.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: (Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Fun to watch, though, especially for students of logic!) Uh, no. People can see how damaging unions are -- well, except for people who are in unions. Public employee unions are the worst of all. I am in a Public employee union, the IAFF.   No one has to point out the negatives of  a union I can see it all the time.  I can also tell you that the city politicians will cut your balls off the first chance they get.  If it wasn't for the union the fire dept. would be in a world of shit.

And in the end they would be screwed, because if they truly screwed up, you could leave, and fire protection would fall apart. Their voters would be enraged and they'd lose their jobs.

This weekend while talking with my dad (a very skilled union guy for a LONG time) told me that my wife and I have a "very distorted idea of what union work is like"

NO DUH, dad.

However, let's face it, it's not all milk and honey on either side of the white/blue collar fence. My dad and I talk often enough about our jobs that I know that. And I even applaud why the unions were started in the first place: There was no worker protection at all. A guy would get injured - lose a hand even - and as he was being wheeled out the foreman would say "you're fired" and a new guy would step in his place.

Meh. I hate reading about abuses on either side. At least union guys get OT.

Quoted: Improving your lot in life means including your marketable skill sets, not threatening to walk out on the job unless your employer pays 100% of your health care costs. But thanks for illustrating the union mentality. "Improving your own life is done by extorting the other guy".

What planet did you wake up on?
No self-respecting collective bargaining unit would even dream of such an unreasonable demand...
Very few units even have a strike vote during negotiations...
It is all about legal accountability on both sides.  Time to come back to Earth.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think the trouble with unions is they are stuck in the 19th century. As in politics, power corrupts. I agree with swingset, they do serve a purpose; However they are made up of "people." Sometimes failable, often self-serving, and very often grossly ineffective. Unfortunately, I've seen unions cause more harm than good in my experience. I once knew a union president to "stand his ground" in negotiations with a failing company. In a nutshell; The company's product line was obsolete.  Area was poverty stricken, not a lot of jobs. Average wage at this company was well over $15 per hour.  Company asks for a pay cut for for a year to help with expenses of retooling. Union refuses.("We've always made "whatnots" that's a company problem!") Company closes after over 100 years. Relocates to neighboring state(who offered generous tax incentives) changes product line, and makes the new product. I think there were close to 100 jobs lost. I think this happened because of the mistrust between the company and the union. I imagine the unions were  needed in the age of the "robber barons." I think in the information age they're a little redundant. JMHO & YMMV Hessian-1   Here's a little info on todays "robber barons". For or against In my line of work the unions are a necessary evil The Florida Times-Union March 22, 2006 CSX CEO rakes in $22.6 million In a year in which Jacksonville-based railroad CSX Corp. earned $1.145 billion -- more than double its earnings from the year before -- its chief executive officer raked in $22.6 million in total compensation. ... So the CEO doubles the earnings, gets less than 2% of the earnings as a bonus and he's a robber barron? Jealousy, pure and simple. Fact is,without these 'robber barons', union hacks wouldn't have a job - unless they sucked off the government teet as a public employee. Face it, if you're in the lower rungs of a company, like union employees generally are, you're pretty much interchangable with anyone who can has the training or can be trained. That's millions and millions of people. That's why their compensation is what it is. Having the talent, intelligence, imagination and courage to run a successful multi million or multi-billion dollar business is a rare skillset. That's why they're paid so much. Of course, the principle of supply and demand generally isn't recognized by (most) union members.

Jealousy...

Reminds me of a story I once heard about a giveaway promotion. The union guys either wanted EVERYONE to get one of the giveaway prizes, or NOBODY. Because the "losers" don't get anything. (kind of the way drawings and many promotions work, no?)

Smacks of communism to me.

Quoted: Companies NEVER should have gotten into the benefits business other than vacation and sick days. Pension plans end up ruining companies (see the Big 3) and employer paid  medical insurance has ended up contributing the the skyrocketing cost of health care.

You have got to be kidding me.     Collective bargaining for insurance benefits helps all.  The increase of uninsured poorly paid workers has driven up costs for all.    Pension plans do not ruin companies.  Profit sharing encourages employee ownership in the business.

To our Union bashing friend here, what happened ? Did some bad union man make you feel bad about yourself that you need to initiate posts regarding unions ?I cant believe you spend your time railing about things that you in all liklihood have no real idea about. I dont think you need worry yourself too much, Union membership has been declining horribly and with our current Brain Trust in office Im sure it will continue in that direction. It should prove interesting ,possibly in your childrens time to see how things work out, you know , once it gets back to only Rich and Poor, then you will be able to spin in your grave as your children have to form Unions in order to fight for things like, 8 hour work day, overtime, weekends, medical coverage and pensions. No need to reply, as I wont be checing back in on this thread.
Have fun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Employees should have the right to unionize, and employers should have the right to fire everyone in a union if they don't want to deal with a union at THEIR company. They can't do that now, because of the government... Yeah, and while we're at it lets abolish that socialist minimum wage law. Why should I have to pay my employees $5.15 per hour if there is someone willing to do the job for $2.00 an hour? hr Sarcasm coming from someone who doesn't understand economics. Google "minimum wage, maximum folly" by walter E Williams. Minimum wage harms the people it claims to hurt. It prices lower skilled workers out of the first-rung jobs, because their skills are currently under the minimum price it takes to employ them. So instead of getting their foot in the door, they get left outside. So, are you saying that I should be able to pay employees $2.00 an hour? How about $1.00 an hour? Now lets work on getting rid of this pesky OSHA thing and abolishing these antiquated "Child labor laws". Where does it end? How about if I fire anyone who take a lunch break or calls in sick? Sadly, it never ends. Why?  Employers will always do whatever it takes to maximize profits. Without the few checks and balances that we have in place, third world style sweatshops would still be the norm. You think there is a big gap between the upper class and the lower class now? Did you follow my advice and google the article, or are you choosing to remain ignorant??? It looks like you chose the latter.

I did Google the article however, the argument is fallacious
[Google- “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”].

The government mandated minimum wage is not keeping low-skilled/no-skilled people out of jobs.

Lack of skills and education keep them out of jobs.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: (Is it just me, or does it seem like the only people that have a problem with unions are the ones that aren't in them? Kinda like the only people who are anti-gun are the ones who don't have them. Serves to remove a lot of credibility from the argument. Fun to watch, though, especially for students of logic!) Uh, no. People can see how damaging unions are -- well, except for people who are in unions. Public employee unions are the worst of all. I am in a Public employee union, the IAFF.   No one has to point out the negatives of  a union I can see it all the time.  I can also tell you that the city politicians will cut your balls off the first chance they get.  If it wasn't for the union the fire dept. would be in a world of shit. And in the end they would be screwed, because if they truly screwed up, you could leave, and fire protection would fall apart. Their voters would be enraged and they'd lose their jobs.

That's all fine in theory but in reality it would be a long elevator ride to hell for the public safety employees.  The city council people don't care if they get re-elected or not.  It's not their full time jobs, it's their ego booster.

Quoted: It's your friend, too. Read 'The myth of the robber barron'  and get some context as to ALL the reasons why unions were put in place, instead of just pontificating on what you think you know. You see the same mentality here that cuased the unions to be formed: People fear their jobs will be taken by someone who will work for less (in the post civil war days it had a lot to do with racism by those who feared blacks would come up from the south and do their jobs for less). That caused a lot of organizing - just as 'selfish' as those who owned the companies.

There's no "What I think I know", jackass, and I'm not pontificating.

I'm telling you one simple, undeniable element of human nature that you are refusing to argue, acknowledge or listen to....

Without a counterbalance, no matter what it is, industry and business will become corrupt and ruin the normal working man or at least set us back 100 years.

Don't think so? Ok, look at it in a way you'll understand. Why do people shop at Walmart? They KNOW that it's not good for America, all the Chinese crap and low wages, and putting people out of business, etc. Poll 1000 people and 900 will tell you they'd rather buy American than Chinese.

So, why is Walmart the biggest giant in the world? Because people will continue to seek the easiest, cheapest way. Right? Of course. Human nature, do without regards to the consequences. It's how it's ALWAYS worked.

So, apply that to business (based on the historical realities of how the western industrial nations have evolved). Without Unions, or government oversight, what happened? The largest companies, who set the trends in their industries, treated their workers poorly - or at least as minimally as they could to still remain competitive. So, in your utopia all the workers at Ford or General Electric say "Fuck it" and go to the competitor, right? WRONG!!!!!

Why? Because in order for the small competition to remain competitive to the large, rotten business, they MUST compete and as it always worked, the smaller companies had nothing better to offer. They followed the status quo (shitty pay, working conditions, etc.) in order just to be in the game. When the biggest businesses become sweatshops because there's more $$ in it to do so, the rest of the business world follows....just like Walmart. Lead, get out of the way, or go out of business. All it takes is a few big, nasty businesses to set the trend, and BANG! You don't have the option as a worker of going someplace else.....because the power balance has ensured that ALL business will deteriorate. So, what do the workers do? Gather together and shut down industry because of the poor conditions and pay? Organize? Wow, that sounds like the concept of a Union. Get it now?

This isn't a discussion about economics or capitalism, or economic principles, I don't care what you say or think. It's a discussion about human nature, and human nature says that when one has all the power, and the other is prostrate, the one with the power fucks the one without.

Unions are a necessary evil (note, EVIL), but without them let's hear again how your worker's utopia will work when there's no counterbalance? I love a fairy tale. Do tell.

Quoted: Here's a little info on todays "robber barons". For or against In my line of work the unions are a necessary evil The Florida Times-Union March 22, 2006 CSX CEO rakes in $22.6 million In a year in which Jacksonville-based railroad CSX Corp. earned $1.145 billion -- more than double its earnings from the year before -- its chief executive officer raked in $22.6 million in total compensation. That figure includes $19.9 million in cash and stock earned as part of the company's long-term incentive package, which covered both 2004 and 2005. Over those two years, a key measure tracked by the company based upon operating income increased by 56 percent, triggering the multi-million dollar payout. The company does not generally offer stock options or have other award systems utilizing stock. The rest of CEO Michael Ward's compensation came from his $947,792 base salary and $1.8 million bonus, the largest bonus he's received since taking the reins of the company in 2003, according to a document filed with the Security and Exchange Commission. Most of the company's peers have not filed the documents required by the SEC, although they are expected to be turned in later this week. The other railroad that did file, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, reported that its CEO earned $5.9 million in 2005, including a $1.1 million base salary, $2.5 million bonus and $2.2 million in stock and stock options. The BNSF chief, Matthew Rose, was the highest paid of the big railroad executives in 2004, bringing in $11 million, followed by Norfolk Southern CEO David Goode, who earned a total of $10.2 million. That year, Ward was the caboose on the train, earning a total of $2.1 million. CSX's stock closed at $58.62 Monday, down 95 cents or 1.6 percent. Canadian Natl Railway CEO Got $3.85M Bonus For 2005 Dow Jones Newswires March 21, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Canadian National Railway Co. (CNI) reported on Tuesday that Chief Executive E. Hunter Harrison received a $3.85 million bonus for 2005, up from his 2004 bonus of $3.5 million. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Harrison also received a $17.3 million long-term incentive payout for 2005, compared with a $1.59 million long-term incentive payout for 2004. The 2005 award payout was based on performance-based restricted units awarded in 2004 that were accelerated when specified performance targets were met. The 2005 long-term incentive payout was increased to the maximum allowable amount of 120% of the grant. Harrison got a $1.38 million salary for 2005, compared with a $1.25 million salary in 2004, the filing said. Shares of the transcontinental railroad company closed at $46.33, up 4 cents from Monday's closing price.

So, your upset that a CEO who helped his company EARN 1.1 Billion dollars got paid 22.6 million.

Seems the STOCKHOLDERS, aka the OWNERS of the company probably don't have a problem with it.

If you do, buy some stock in it, and be heard.  And laughed at.

TXL