4 ms·

> Unions exist primarily to engage with employers, not government. Simply not true. Unions engaged in both historically. Workers rights is a political cause af

> Unions exist primarily to engage with employers, not government. Simply not true. Unions engaged in both historically. Workers rights is a political cause after all. Historically, unions primarily engaged the government to gain rights for the workers. Every union is/was a political organization first.

LatteLazy 7y ago
Just because unions did that historically, doesn't mean they can do it today. When was the last time a Union engaged the federal government for something not related to workers rights (like this) and succeeded? My guess is before Reagan. Before I was born, and I am old now. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if they could and did. Increased union power would be a boon to workers. But wanting something doesn't make it happen. I am also happy to agree that unions used to be much more politically powerful. Though even then, they concentrated workers rights, not say freedom of speech issues. Since at least the 70s, Unions have been crippled by changing economic structures and politicians who don't like the competition. In the 1960s, 30% of workers were in a union. Today it's 13% mostly federal or state employees. Unions in private industry barely exist anymore. Simultaneously, the percentage of votes who are workers (and so might be in a union) has fallen. That double-whammy means they can barely keep their members from unemployment. Expecting them to safeguard to constitution and take on the federal government is (sorry) silly.
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  The UAW notoriously was a huge force in getting Daimler-Chrysler bailed out. The major unions in the US have some of the biggest lobbying arms there are.
  - LatteLazy 7y ago
    Your example was working with the federal government not opposing it. Your answer was purely about saving their members jobs, not them going off an engaging politically. Your union had the support of CEOs and Owners. I have to ask: do you really, honestly, believe that unions are politically powerful at the federal level and interested in subjects that don't directly affect their members? Really? Despite the dwindling memberships, widespread At Will employment being passed, record gaps between worker and CEO pay? Really?
    - kasey_junk 7y ago
      I think it’s undeniable that union power has decreased over the last 50 years. But it’s also just untrue that they aren’t political entities. In many ways that’s what they primarily are.
- username90 7y ago
  > Just because unions did that historically, doesn't mean they can do it today. You said Governments, not USA specifically. Unions are very politically active all over Europe, a large number of top politicians have been or were union leaders. So to me USA seems to be the odd one out on this rather than the rule.

LatteLazy 7y ago

Just because unions did that historically, doesn't mean they can do it today. When was the last time a Union engaged the federal government for something not related to workers rights (like this) and succeeded? My guess is before Reagan. Before I was born, and I am old now. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if they could and did. Increased union power would be a boon to workers. But wanting something doesn't make it happen. I am also happy to agree that unions used to be much more politically powerful. Though even then, they concentrated workers rights, not say freedom of speech issues. Since at least the 70s, Unions have been crippled by changing economic structures and politicians who don't like the competition. In the 1960s, 30% of workers were in a union. Today it's 13% mostly federal or state employees. Unions in private industry barely exist anymore. Simultaneously, the percentage of votes who are workers (and so might be in a union) has fallen. That double-whammy means they can barely keep their members from unemployment. Expecting them to safeguard to constitution and take on the federal government is (sorry) silly.

kasey_junk 7y ago
The UAW notoriously was a huge force in getting Daimler-Chrysler bailed out. The major unions in the US have some of the biggest lobbying arms there are.
- LatteLazy 7y ago
  Your example was working with the federal government not opposing it. Your answer was purely about saving their members jobs, not them going off an engaging politically. Your union had the support of CEOs and Owners. I have to ask: do you really, honestly, believe that unions are politically powerful at the federal level and interested in subjects that don't directly affect their members? Really? Despite the dwindling memberships, widespread At Will employment being passed, record gaps between worker and CEO pay? Really?
  - kasey_junk 7y ago
    I think it’s undeniable that union power has decreased over the last 50 years. But it’s also just untrue that they aren’t political entities. In many ways that’s what they primarily are.
username90 7y ago
> Just because unions did that historically, doesn't mean they can do it today. You said Governments, not USA specifically. Unions are very politically active all over Europe, a large number of top politicians have been or were union leaders. So to me USA seems to be the odd one out on this rather than the rule.