Why Unions Keep Losing

Because workers reject them, don't want to be limited by them, don't trust them and saw how they lost jobs in the past because of them. I've seen the transition in the South as textile, woodproducts, pulp and paper jobs went away as unions price the labor out of the market and made managing the workforce impossible.

Why Unions Keep Losing
The UAW isn’t offering workers a better deal, and there’s corruption.

The United Auto Workers lost another vote to organize a southern American auto plant late last week, and maybe some introspection is in order. Workers with good jobs and wages aren’t buying what the union is selling.

The UAW lost 833-776 in its second attempt to organize Volkswagen AG’s plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., that builds Passat sedans and Atlas SUVs. The defeat is especially notable because the union devoted enormous resources to this effort after a narrow defeat in 2014. The union blamed Tennessee Republicans for the 2014 loss, but this time GOP Governor Bill Lee preached labor-management cooperation rather than opposition to the union.


The UAW couldn’t overcome Volkswagen’s pitch that workers are better off without a union dunning their paychecks for dues and perhaps making the plant less competitive. Wages and benefits for production workers can add up to $23.50 an hour, which is well above the median in Chattanooga.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-unions-keep-losing-11560716489

 

Why do you think, where worker rights are stronger, unions are also stronger? Think carefully now!

 

Unions never appealed to me. They only benefit those workers who lower the average.

 

They are strong now without them and workers prefer not working under union "rules". Why do you think they keep refusing to certify them? Think carefully now!

 

Twice I was in one twice but corrupt in their own ways then in management I REALLY saw how corrupt they were in Chicago. They held down my wages more than helped them.

 

You didn't answer the question. You instead just gave nonsense. Do you think the pay-productivity gap is a good thing? Why do you think it is more difficult to find where worker rights are stronger?

 

Unions suppress workers. Unions suppress all workers except their members, and then they convince their members that they lifted them up. And that's not their best trick. Unions have historically been able to convince a majority of their members that they lower the average and will benefit from being averaged in with the other members.

 

Refer to an empirical study where unionisation doesn't generate wage gain...

 

I have no scale to measure you question by, I do have the reality that in former union states unions are being routinely rejected and have been losing members for decades except in the government sector. I call on manufacturing and have seen the shift over the last 40 years. The auto and steel industries are HUGE customers of mine and the workers reject union representation. They've been through it before and they had lousy jobs they eventually lost and hated to work in those union work forces. They like their non-union employment and plan on keeping it that way.

 

You can refer to time series or cross sectional data. You pick. Being an internationalist I'd go with panel data, referring to how countries which protect worker rights naturally see strong union movements. By ignoring that, you're just whinging.

 

The basic problem with unions is that they have adopted a socialist platform. Under their socialist platform, perfomance is unrewarded and sometimes met with hostility. Socialist union policies tend to lower productivity and worker incentive. As a result, companies become less profitable and their products usually are less competitive in the market.

 

Mote drivel! Unionisation, for example, is often associated with higher productivity rates. From voice effects to reducing the impact of market power, they are a natural part of capitalism.

 

Hmm.... Britain has very strong labour rights, but for some reason, British Leyland still managed to go out of business. New Zealand and Australia also have very strong labour laws, but NZ is famous for manufacturing kiwi fruit, and Australia is famous for manufacturing... umm... umm... vegemite. France has strong labor laws, but they can't seem to manufacture a peugeot that can be driven out of the dealer's lot without at least one major breakdown. Germany has some pretty good labor laws like guaranteeing the ability to form unions, yet their biggest DGB has been steadily losing members since the mid 90s, and had lost half their membership before they stopped keeping track.

In the good ol' homeland, Detroit used to be a real union city, but now... well let's just say that unions aren't quite as strong as they used to be.

In other words, you lose again.

 

I refer to results and reality.

 

Do you? How come you haven't referred to any then? Why, for example, does the US and the UK have higher incidence of low wage labour and also insignificant collective bargaining?

 

That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever. Name a single union which is noted for productivity. I was a member of IBEW for a couple of decades and I can tell you they are the biggest bunch on no loads I ever worked with. They had a motto about giving an honet 4 hours a day..... Few do that. The ones who do, are ostrisized by their fellow no loads for trying to make them look bad.

 

Like where? The auto industry is pretty much evenly split.

https://www.automobilemag.com/news/the-15-top-producing-american-car-plants-151801/

 

Already said. Its found in multiple countries and summed up with the notion of 'voice effects'. Managers can be rather cretinous after all.

 

Thatcher has been out of office for quite some time. When Blair won, he undid what Thatcher accomplished.

 

I have no need to oblige your question the workers speak for themselves as to collective bargaining as I have noted and demonstrated in the OP.

 

I'm talking here in the United States under our labor laws. Where? Where is union labor more productive than non-union labor.

 

So you can't answer a question where the answer would destroy the OP? Who'd have thought?

 

You need to refer to international evidence as evidence is not time invariant. For example, try the classic piece by Doucouliagos and Laroche (The Effect of Unions on Labor Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review) which concluded on unionisation and productivity that "a negative association appears for the UK, while a positive one exist for US manufacturing and the US in general"

 

I have no need to and if you want to refute that the workers didn't just vote down the union but instead did feel free to try.

 

And that refutes another loss by the unions how?

You did not comment on the list of most productive car plants.........