Should Government Control or Outlaw Unions?

It's a question full of sentiment but it has it's pitfalls for those who attempt to remain credible. It's an uncomfortable quandary for the libertarians but an easy question to answer for most conservatives. Let's have a go at it here but be forewarned, everyone is going to have to be very cautious with their answers. That is, the ones who have the courage to take it on.

 

I don't have a problem with the existence of unions as long as private companies have the freedom to bar them if they choose.

 

Let's see which nations have outlawed or placed labor unions under Government control, China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union. When the government in the U.S. tried to do it, blood flowed in the hills of Kentucky and on the streets of many factory towns. when labor unions were strong here, with roughly 1/3rd of the workers being members, we had a rising middle class, since the anti-union forces in this nation have successfully weakened them, the middle class has begun to disappear back into the poor. But right wing ideologues don't cared about the middle class or the poor, only about enriching the wealthiest even more.

 

This is only a issue due to propaganda. When I ask people to explain how the government is involved in the collective bargaining process, I usually get a big DUH..........as a response.

Workers have a right to own their collective labor.

A collective bargaining agreement is between two concenting private parties.

Their is no ideological problem that libertarian's should have with collective labor.

 

Generally speaking, the point of contention is usually with public sector unions. Most actual conservatives and libertarians are hands off about regulating private unions, but they want more restrictions on public sector unions.

The reasoning behind this is that public sector employees run vital services with which the public often doesn't have private alternatives to turn to in the event of a strike.

 

I find the whole union arguement to be absurd these days.

I have friends that are members of the prison guard's union, and they can't go on strike, nor can cops, or other essential personel.

The arguement that their compensation is out of line would be OK if we haven't watched our quality of life being destroyed over the last few decades.

I don't believe for one second that public employees have been taking advantage of a system flaw in compensation, but that coprate America has been so effective in getting us to give up our HC insurance and pensions, that it just appears this way!

 

For police, I would agree.

For prison guards... not so much.

Prison guard unions are a major part of why the War on Drugs has continued. They also tend to align their stances with those of private prison contractors, since they have an obvious mutual interest in building more prisons.

Basically, I don't have much sympathy for prison guard unions. I do sympathize with cops and teachers, however.

 

Ding ding ding ding! I have no problem with the structure of Federal public sector unions as a model. It allows collective bargaining for working conditions and representation.

No collective bargaining for wages (a legislative issue)
No strikes allowed
No forced union dues

 

Union members should have the right to opt out of that portion of their monthly due that goes to political donations and political lobbying.

That's what the California State Bar had to do after Governor Pete Wilson defunded them, and its a common sense solution.

- - - Updated - - -

Union members should have the right to opt out of that portion of their monthly due that goes to political donations and political lobbying.

That's what the California State Bar had to do after Governor Pete Wilson defunded them, and its a common sense solution.

 

Police have that same lobbying influence and interest in maintaining the status quo on the war on drugs, but I am guessing I am preaching to the choir here.

Teachers of course can actually strike, and have some of the most corrupt unions in this nation.

I don't like to talk bad about unions considering the propaganda efforts against them, but some of the stuff I here that goes down at these delgates conferances with the teachers unions makes my industrial union's corruption look like a shining light of transperancy and accountablity.

 

Police are more divided on the War on Drugs than you'd think. A lot of younger cops are aware of the stats on the failures of the War on Drugs and are able to make the connection to Prohibition.

A lot of experienced cops have seen firsthand the absurdities of the War on Drugs and would rather focus on investigating rapes and murders.

That being said, DEA employees obviously favor the War on Drugs, as do police that focus mostly on drug law enforcement.

It really depends on the state. In a lot of the least unionized states, teachers experience really bad pay and benefits. My state is like that. There's a reason why we rank low on education. It's because we can't afford to keep good teachers with the low pay they typically get. The best ones often pay their dues starting out here but then leave for better paying states.

 

Your question is a good one, but is tough to answer. The need for unions in the first place is because all business leaders aren't smart. The opposition to unions exists mainly because all union leaders aren't smart either. Some leaders in both business and labor are corrupt, basing decision-making on self-interest, greed, and personal power..... much like politicians.

A smart business leader pays his/her best workers what they're actually worth, and bases pay on individual merit. A smart buiness leader provides dedicated, hard-working, and skilled employees with benefits that improve the lives of those employees. To do otherwise jeopardizes the business, for smart workers with skills have the power to work for Companies where they're treated fairly.

A smart union leader works WITH Company management, and concerns himself/herself with the skills of union workers, the dedication and hard work of those employees, the welfare of the emplyees, as well as the ongoing viability and growth of the Company. To do otherwise jeopardizes the futures of the workers as well as the Company and its management.

I'd like to think that unions are unecessary, but I believe that worker protections are necessary. I could support the elimination of unions IF an intelligent, merit-based system of worker-protection laws were developed. Unfortunately, "intelligent" and "government" are usually oxymorons.

 

I'm sure the rank and file cops for the most part support ending the status quo, but their union leadership is another story.

I was once in a union meeting and suggested that our unions dues should partially go to books that should be given to any union member that wants one. My suggestion was that Greedy Bastards by Dylan Ratigan should be the first book. I argued that it does not offer a left vs right narrative, but a narrative of ruthless mission assessment, and reality based problem solving.

That we needed to engage the union membership.

This suggestion was met with such venom, that I have no doubt in my mind that the idea itself threatened the way things were being done.

I support the idea of unions, but they are centralized power, and inherantly aligned to corruption. It was the people taking their unions back from the corruption that enabled those major labor movements of the last century.

In the same way that we need to take our local governments back first, unions will be the battle ground if the people ever begin waking up again.

They are both centralized power, but centralized in a local community where change can easily be effected.

You must be from one of the few states that aren't represented by the 3 major teachers unions.

 

Neither.

Government should butt out of labor/management interactions, favoring neither one.

 

Should stockholder's be able to disallow their portion of a companies profits from being used for political donations and government lobbying? I really would like to get my full profits rather than have the corporation donate it to candidates I don't approve of.

 

America is, in many respects, a study in extremes.

While the North is largely dominated by unions, my slice of the South is the other extreme.

It stems from the history of brutal strikebreaking that went on down here back in the early 1900s. Ever since then, unions have been scarce.

We have the lowest % union workforce in the entire country (2.7%).

 

I support right to work legislation and do not think unions should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. The interests of unions are not necessarily the same as those of the workers, though I have a somewhat positive opinion of them, and it is important unions not wield excessive influence in the workplace. Some regulation may be fine, but the state should not ban, co-opt, or directly manage the affairs of unions.

 

This is the standard answer of those who freely admit that they are for stealing the liberties of others. They say that they don't have any problems with unions as long as companies have the unlimited power to take away that freedom to belong to a union.

Unfortunately this one has to be joking. I mean they aren't really all that stupid and it's not that easy to prove the point.

Or is it?

- - - Updated - - -

And so all we need do is have a look to see who it was in the US who tried to emulate China and Nazi Germany's success!

 

Well I have to hand it to you, you didn't take the bait as quickly as Serfin did. However you did comment on the desirability of taking away some people's rights to belong to the union of their choice. I suppose it doesn't get much clearer than that! You would just fix it up with an org that had no real power.

 

Because the intention of the government is always in the best interest of government employees?

 

It's easy for libertarians. A union, at it's core, is an association and it is wrong for the government to interfere with associations. Unions should neither be banned, nor given privileges in the same vein that no other organizations, including corporations, should be prevented nor privileged. It is then up to the employers to decide whether to work with those unions and to what extent.

Public unions are a different matter. While government workers have the right to free association, the government should not be negotiating with those unions as it creates a costly conflict of interest.

 

None at all. In many cases, it may make sense. However, if the collective labor represents largely unskilled or low skilled labor, then they will have a very poor position from which to bargain. On the other hand, if the collective labor sets standards that appeal to the employer, it could be a win win situation where labor earns more and employers assume less risk. In the current legal environment, labor unions benefit from being adversarial rather than cooperative.

 

This I disagree with. Politicians are well aware that it is organized voting blocs that keep them in office, not individual voters. The pain of individual taxpayers will represent little or no concern compared to the noise made by organized public labor unions. On top of that, politicians aren't much concerned about anything beyond the next election, so they don't take a long term view that investors in a corporation would demand. It's also easy to give away money that doesn't belong to them nor needs to be earned by hard work and customer satisfaction.

 

Government should not allow "government unions" which fight for tax dollars (which apparently is a never ending well when you look at the pension benefits). Private unions are ok.

 

The government should encourage the formation of labor unions. It would save the rest of us tremendous amounts of money if there are people on the job sites to be sure that health and safety and environmental regulations are enforced and that working people are paid appropriately.

Thjere is no religious or natural reason that an investor must be allowed to profit from his investment if the worker is not paid for his labor.

The price of labor is, naturally, a day's decent provisions for a day's work. Anything less is slavery.