Why Unions Keep Losing

Plus, unions are democratic institutions. Their leaders are elected. A bad union leader can be voted out of office. The same can't be said of a bad manager, unfortunately.

 

Well, that's what google is for. To clear your cloud of ignorance.

"
36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union

Weekends
All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States"

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-Union-36-Ways-Unions-Have-Improved-Your-Life

Please explain how these protections were not a benefit to its applying industrys workers?

 

I live in a right to work state and I've never joined the union. Though I worked in places where there were Union people. That was a good 20 years ago and I advanced and was promoted and got better jobs and the Union laborers are still where they were 20 years ago.

It seemed like they were lazy to me. They wanted a demanded income regardless of how much work they put in.

One company I work for was really funny. It was a construction company, and when I applied for it they had a night contract. And that's the job I was working on. It was a union job and they were dragging out out as long as they could to milk the contract for as much money as possible, so the contract holder decided to hire the company I was working for to work at night. We would do in an 8-hour shift what took them week. They were pissed off. I remember leaving one morning at all these workers were screaming at us. They kept calling us scabs. I wasn't working there as someone to do the work while they were on strike.

It would have been hilarious they went on strike.

 

So thank the unions for having to deal with an HR? I will thank them for overtime pay that's a good thing and I will also thank them for some safety code regulations but beyond that they've been a menace.

Have you ever dealt with an HR department?

 

Democratic communism is not Superior to meritocracy in anyway. Unless you're lazy and what to get paid for nothing.

 

Back when I sold Insurance...And I only dealt with them when I was Hired, and let go for good reason (I advised customers "too much" on how to deal with the claims department when trying to get the maximum amount they were due.) I hated the job.

Edit: Oh, and I guess technically in the Navy. Still never really a problem.

..Why? They didn't really bother me otherwise.

 

They're not there to bother you they're there to protect the employer from you.

So thanks to unions for overtime pay and the 40 hour work week everything else basically communism no thanks.

 

Aaaand, that is far more common with a non union, underpaid legal workforce.

Yea, Iv worked with crappy employees..and they get let go, and get to sit on a couch in their living room waiting a few years between assignment numbers unpaid.

 

Delete

 

Everything else does not apply to you, only those 2 do then. And your welcome.

 

if they were underpaid nobody would work for them. value of work is not some arbitrary thing decided by somebody else it's decided by the person selling the labor.

who deems them to be crappy workers?

 

well technically you're not entitled to tell me you're welcome because you didn't do that.

People long before you did. nowadays what I have a union to thank for is bolshevism. Thanks for the bolshevism our country really needs that right now.

 

Umm...Number 1, because YOU would not work there does not = no one would..So that argument is flushed down the toilet. People making $100/hr can feel underpaid, yet remain on the job.

#2 the Liaison for the contract owner at the time, maybe a safety officer, perhaps an owner, several veteran employees. It depends.

 

Why aren't you even aware of how economics study union effects? I find it strange. The efficient bargain is a well known analysis. You're suggesting that unions follow automatically right to manage analysis. The historical evidence shows otherwise, with unions increasing both wage and employment levels.

 

if somebody else would that means that the labor that they provide is worth every penny of what it's being paid.

Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them.

the argument that something is only worth what someone will pay for it is flushed down the toilet? So you're not rejecting just the idea that there should be a minimum standard of payment you're rejecting economy entirely.

then they aren't underpaid. they are selling their labor for that price if it wasn't enough they wouldn't sell it for that price.

things are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. That includes labor.

a contract owner? That doesn't make sense. There is the contractors and the contract. A contract isn't a piece of property it is an agreement between contractors.

 

The business owners represent themselves. Why should you complain about the Union managers looking out for themselves instead of you.............go figger.

 

Those are the rules you follow, does not apply to everyone.

Ignorance can cause people to sell things far below market value...Situations can force most to accept they must sell below market value, and endure....Many people are in different situations that do not apply to you.

And that is why you will find underpaid non union employees milking union benefits, and slacking off far more often then proud properly compensated Union employees.

 

Because them looking out for themselves in my situation is a direct benefit to me, we made it that way.

I'm sure there are good business owners, no doubt.
But in industrys where it is flooded with inspiration to be a corrupt business owner..Unions can form.

 

no that's the fundamental rule governing trade. If something is worth x amount of dollars then people will pay x amount of dollars if it isn't then they won't.

If you don't this go and get yourself a 1987 Hyundai and sell it for $450,000.

so it pays to not be ignorant. I agree.

yes desperation changes value. If you can sell your labor is $100 an hour but it may take you a few weeks or months to find someone willing to pay you that much for it and in the meantime you sell your labor for $50 an hour that means you're worth labor is worth $50 an hour if it wasn't you wouldn't sell it for that.

Exchanging money for labor is a voluntary action no matter what.

situations don't undo this principle. If you agree to sell your labor for a certain amount that is what it's worth to you. If it was worth more you would sell it for more. if nobody will pay you more for it that's because nobody else sees it as that high of value. No situation no matter what will change that.

Market value is ideal. We live in a less-than-ideal world sorry.

 

I'm pretty sure someone understood this.....What?

Just respond to people without butchering their quotes to read what you wanted to read, in phrases that are convenient for you to cherry pick..It makes more sense for everyone involved..WTF is this broken garble?

 

A universal rule. Things are only worth what someone will pay for them.

Does addressing individual points make you forget English?

 

Aaand, you did it again...Taking things out of context and butchering responses to fit your,.. narrative, misunderstanding?

My first sub quote from you was not a misunderstanding of your point, context, or even how you arrived to your logic...It was a question of what you did to my previous sub quotes you butchered.

I know that universal rule. But it has little to do with the OP, and how unions are beneficial, and are not losing. Nor should be abolished/rendered useless/looked down upon, avoided, slandered, etc, due to ignorance of why they exist in the first place.

 

what was the context that got lost?

What is being lost here? I'm addressing an independent point.

Sorry, I just figure you know what you wrote.

I know why they existed back when they first formed. But it isn't the same reason they exist now.

 

The reason they exist now is because the market demands them...There's value in them, like you typed.
The Universal rule.

 

If that were the case unions would dominate in right to work states