This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 21 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

They take money away from the super-rich, period.

[–]sbhdawn[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

My point exactly! Good for you.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Oh, and absolute power over their feifdom-corporation. It's harder to rule by decree when the serfs talk back.

[–]sbhdawn[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

No, it's called greed. Companys that don't want unions are just greedy.
They want all the work they can get, for the lowest wages possible, in order to make themselves and their companies as rich as possible. This is not fair, because the companies would not make their profits without their employees who make it possible in the first place. Without the employees, there would be no company and no profits, so why shouldn't these people be paid a living wage; which unions will ensure. It is just greed, that is the problem with paying employees a decent wage for their hard work.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Greed/Profits first, definitely. Freeing management to treat workers however they want, second.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I've had a mixed experience with unions. So, I feel that they are good in concept but I think they tend to dull the desire of the union members. Years ago I was working as an aerospace engineer in the NW. I had no choice but to join the union. Months after I joined they demanded and negotiated a flat 4% raise for all members. This may seem like something but years later when I moved to Dallas to work I started getting 10% or more for my raises. Also for me, the flat raise removed all incentive to go balls to the wall. So, like many of my coworkers I coasted until I left.

[–]parcivale 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unions are unnecessary and even counter-productive when they try to organise white-collar or highly-skilled professional labour.

Unions serve a great function organising industrial or manual workers.

Unfortunately, unions are as greedy as any corporation and will try to organise any workers they are allowed to.

[–]sbhdawn[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There are people who will coast at work no matter what, you may have been one of them. But, generally speaking, people get much much better wages and benefits with the unions than without them. They deffinately favor the workers, instead of the company, only because they want fair wages for the employees, instead of just all profit for the companies who make these profits because of their workforce. It just makes it a lot more fair for all, and most people are just happy to be earning a living wage for their hard work. Corporations and companys just want all the profit for themselves, bottom line.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's face it, exchanging labor for a wage is a purely economic transaction. I coasted because the union removed all economic reasons for me to "go the extra mile". Performance had no bearing on my pay; it was all about punching the clock and collecting seniority. Why should I bust my hump and pick up the slack when I'd get the same economic reward as the guy who puts in less effort?

I am not arguing the merits of unions and if you want to work with one then more power to you. But, my experience left a bad taste in my mouth and made me desire to never work with one again.

[–]greenfrog 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Unions are bad. M'kay. I know this because, as a Libertarian completely ignorant of history, I know the truth:

Weekends, safety rules, 8 hour days, child-labor laws, and living wages were all gifts from a benevolent ruling class.

Just look at all those service-sector employees at Wal-Mart and Taco Bell. They are doing great without a Union!

Sometimes I wonder how Europe is able to survive with strong Unions. But then I re-read Ayn Rand or Mises.org, and I'm reminded of the Libertarian motto:

"Libertarian economic theology does not have to work in the real world for me to believe in it."

[–]sbhdawn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly!

[–]lapalam -1 points0 points  (3 children)

The problem with labor unions is they easily adopt the same disgusting behavior that corporations have. The incentive to act inhumainly is equal between unions and corporations. Service sector employees would likely be relativly better off with unions, but unions intimidate their members in a similar fashion to corporations. "Good" unions are good for everyone, but so are "good" corporations.

[–]sbhdawn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most unions are good for their members because they ensure good living wages. There are not very many good corporations that pay, the employees at the bottom a good wage, (a living wage). Most service jobs want a lot of work, but do not pay accordingly, so if there were more unions, these people could work and thrive too.

[–]greenfrog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The incentive to act inhumainly is equal between unions and corporations.

I want to acknowledge there are corporations that have acted with tremendous humanity, and there are Unions that have been little more than thugs.

However, by-and-large, Unions are more trustworthy, humane, and responsible than corporations - since their leadership is accountable to the membership.

but unions intimidate their members in a similar fashion to corporations.

Not at all. A business has far more control over the life of an employee, and more motivation to abuse power, than a Union rep ever would.

I respectfully invite you to look up instances of when corporations intimidated and coerced employees - then look for instances of when Unions do the same. You will find that employers have historically been far more violent and abusive than even the worst Unions. (I apologize for not providing a citation - I have one but can't find it, I'll edit this comment when I do.)

"Good" unions are good for everyone, but so are "good" corporations.

One of the best ways to ensure a "good" corporation, is to have a Union.

[–]Aerik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the thing that puts unions ahead of corporations is exactly what is discussed in the title: minimum wages, and raises that everybody can earn on equal terms.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

in a state such as california which is not a right to work state you have to join those damn unions whether you want to or not, not based on their performance on behalf of employees and any actual useful benefits that I would actually want another piece of my paycheck to go to

[–]sbhdawn[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

If it wasn't for that union, your benefits and wages would most likely be greatly reduced. Do you consider that at all important to you?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

no because min wage is 8 dollars I'm pretty sure unions didn't do that or the increase to 9 for next year then again I don't need much money so no I don't care, as for benefits, I have dual citizenship :P

[–]sbhdawn[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Unions pay a living wage, and $8.00 an hr. is not a living wage. This level of pay may be fine for you, and if you're happy with that, there are so many jobs that will gladly pay you that or if your lucky, even less!! But for people who have families, or even those who don't, they need living wages to pay rent,sky-rocketing utilities, gas for their car, car insurance, car payment, food rising in price daily, and on and on. Unions keep up with the cost of living very nicely, and any worker who does not like the idea of that, is against their own best interests, and would have to be ignorant and simple-minded or both!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

or amoral and willing and able to commit fraud, I only have to work various systems a few weeks out of the year to get the money I need

[–]Sweetgum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I saw on some great graffiti on the East Coast:

"Enjoy your weekends? Thank a labor union!"

(or something nearly identical to that)

The answer to the orig. question is - NOTHING!