Labour Unions and their role today

I think that during this crisis in which the world is almost tipping into a Great Depression, I think that Labour Unions are more important than normal because without them the common worker would be ass-fucked by Employers.

Dutch Lesbian

I agree. Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped.

edited 14th Oct '11 7:40:10 AM by Trotzky

Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!

They're the main weapon of the working class against the burgeoisie, and the only means short of violent revolution than anti-worker bullshit can be fought and defeated.

Unions should be protected at all costs.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Is there even that much debate about unions with the general public? The vibe that I'm getting is that the only strong, organized criticism of them is coming from GOP movements that don't want them (or other barriers to corporate power) to exist in the first place.

Sure, unions aren't perfect, but by and large they seem to be off the radar completely when die-hard Republicans aren't blaming them for the economy and related issues.

Ditto illegal immigrants, for those of us who don't live in a state quite close to Mexico.

edited 14th Oct '11 8:05:39 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

As a lefty who's just about old enought to remember the fallout of the miners strikes I have to put my lardy weight firmly behind unions.

I'm also for the right to withdraw labour and was firmly behind the firefighters stike a couple of years back as well as the proposed forthcoming action by the teachers.

edited 14th Oct '11 8:09:48 AM by rankers

The right does its damndest to tell the working class that unions are evil, overpaid dicks who will keep them from access to jobs, though.

edited 14th Oct '11 8:16:03 AM by Midgetsnowman

...and where do Management Unions fit into this, like a Union of Headmasters or Doctors?

Keep Rolling On

similarly evil. Union is Union is Union in the eyes of the republicans.

There's corruption in them, but there's corruption everywhere, and in any case, the worst thing a corrupt union is likely to do is betray its own ideals.

I think they're a good thing. They grant workers a greater autonomy and protect them from abusive bosses.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Collusion is not considered morally right when done by businesses, yet somehow, collusion among employees is a-ok. Instead of competing such that the better employees get the better deal, unions actively encourage them to stand in solidarity with the lazier, less skilled, or just plain worse employees. They treat people like "groups" instead of the individuals they actually are.

Corporations often treat employees unfairly, but unions aren't necessarily the solution. They try to counteract the influence of owners on employee treatment (well, even that is only if they haven't been bought off... and even then it only applies to employees in their own union) and often just end up operating unfairly themselves anyway. At least if people were to take that effort they put into unions and instead put it into improving government regulations, that would apply to all employees, not just their own union. On top of that, people can instead encourage each other to be conscientious consumers, such that how one feels as an individual will affect purchase decision, instead of everyone throwing their weight in for what "the union" says.

Really, I'm not sure what to make of unions overall, but this thread so far seemed a bit biased in favour of them and I think it needed a bit more dissent in order not to seem like an echo chamber.

edited 14th Oct '11 10:11:38 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

I'm sure if there was strong regulations, unions wouldn't be needed.

But since there isn't...

So, are you going to actually address my point about significant differences between unions and changes to government regulations? What about what I said after that, about conscientious consumers acting as individuals instead of groups?

edited 14th Oct '11 10:13:42 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Well I'm a firm believer that you can't "encourage" people to do something with very good results.

If you want to organize people, you have to corral them. A group is always more effective than the same number of individuals.

Sorry I'm not entirely sure of your point.

Unions are messy at times, but a better solution won't be coming any time son.

edited 14th Oct '11 10:15:33 AM by Thorn14

That seems like a theoretical objection than a realistic one, Matt. I agree with the philosophical principle behind it, but in the reality we're living in right now, the same political forces who object to unions will also object to increased regulations... in fact, they'll object even louder to the latter, since it's a direct increase of government power and spending. In an environment that hostile to any form of solution, I'm willing to take any solution that we can actually ram through, even if it's not an ideal one, in lieu of not getting anything at all or even a reversal of progress.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

@HFM: the thing is. Unions exist because at one point in time, corporations completely controlled the labor market. if you didnt do what the company told you to, you starved to death. There was no safety net, no sane workweek with days off, no employee benefits. Hell, you essentially got paid to buy stuff from the company you worked for while living in houses they owned.

The reasons Unions are more effective than regulations, is that electing officials to put regulations through is reams harder and more inefficient. If shit got regulated to the point where Unions and strikes wouldnt ever be necessary would essentially be the end of the Republican party (as well as parts of the democratic party) In short, that aint gonna happen.

Lump on top of that that more than one group of people out there does its damndest to paint Unions as evil and regulation as the devil at the same time, and at least some of the populace buys that bullshit as true..

edited 14th Oct '11 10:19:46 AM by Midgetsnowman

Except me.

And if the approach taken were the one described in my post, the same political forces who supported unions would support improved regulations, so it cancels out.

Not always, if the change in regulations is to simply make them more efficient and accomplish more with less money.

They had the political momentum to do that before 2010, and pissed it away. If ramming solutions through is what you want you'll have to take down the two-party system, since it tries to pander to both sides (pleasing neither) regardless of how many people are on each. (Let alone how much sense each side makes, though that part's more subjective...)

edited 14th Oct '11 10:27:41 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

That's not how ideological opposition works. It doesn't matter to the GOP if a given proposal that they're opposing is actually more or less efficient than the current system - as we can see in the healthcare system debate.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

There's a level of hypocrisy in dealing with Unions coming from the Right, where arguments against them are phrased in the manner of "protecting the people's right to seek employment" (implying Unions inhibit that), while not seeking similar action against corporations in the name of protecting the people's right to choose who they do business with.

This is what my parents' take has been on it so long as I can remember, and my view of unions is tinged at least in part by it.

~shrug~

A Necessary Evil, same as corporations. Good as long as they aren't greedy, which happens often (again, like corporations). Can go to hell if they pull shit like when the FAA union went on strike or back in the early 1900s when the coal miners were going to shut the largest coal producer in the US down even as winter approached and people were going to freeze.

Ideally, government puts a gun to the heads of both unions and corporations, and then the people puts a larger gun to the head of the government.

It rarely works as planned, however...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I would prefer regulations for unions that push them toward looking more like the better unions in the country. That's what I think is important. If we say "Union x has this problem"... but Union y doesn't? Regulate it.

I dislike the concept that if one of the many unions is poorly designed then we should eliminate all unions. We certainly don't take that approach with corporations, so why with unions? The answer is that corporations concentrate power into literally a couple of guys (like say the CEO and the CFO or CTO for a tech company). Unions do not. They concentrate power into thousands of people per union.

@Matt: Government is by definition an instrument of control of the proletariat by the burgeoisie. Government cannot ever be trusted to defend the interests of the working class: Suggesting government action as an alternative to working class action is anti-worker bullshit.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

So many things wrong.

Government is by definition a mechanism by which society merits self-control by the body as a whole to individuals, to preserve rights and privileges, and interact with other nations as a whole.

Please do us a favor and separate "by definition" and "functional reality," thank you.

I am now known as Flyboy.

The State is the only entity making sure that a capitalist system of property is in place. Without the State's armed goons, nothing would prevent the proletariat from just seizing every damn thing the burgeoisie has and putting it under worker ownership and control.

The State is no friend of the working class, suggesting otherwise is idiotic.

edited 14th Oct '11 11:18:01 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Perish the thought, government protecting property rights? How dare they.

I didn't say it was a friend of the working class. I merely contested your twisted definition of what government "is." Or rather, what you think it "is." That may be what it turns out to be, currently, in the real world, but it's not what it "is," in terms of what it's supposed to be, and I will not have it defined as such.

I am now known as Flyboy.

All I can say is Labor unions can be good but they could also be bad if they are run by people who not so different than the employeers that run the business.If they are in the hands of good peole then it will be good.