9 ms·

We are not going to evolve as a society until we abolish unionized labor. I know that this is a strong statement. And it is likely to attract serious disagree

We are not going to evolve as a society until we abolish unionized labor. I know that this is a strong statement. And it is likely to attract serious disagreement. Take this as on man's opinion and nothing else. It is my contention that in modern times unionized labor has done absolutely nothing good for our society. I understand that they had a time and a place to exist. Today, there's far more evidence of the damage they cause than the positive effects they may have been intended to produce. Unions create a false economy. One where people are paid exorbitant amounts of money for work that could be done for less in an open market. Unions also create stagnation both in terms of innovation and of human capital. Union members exist in an isolated cocoon where there is no need to excel or evolve past your station. Unions damage competitiveness at a national and international level. Unions damage the economy and destroy industries by creating contracts with unreasonable terms, benefits and pensions. Unions in government create a nasty conflict-of-interest situation where hordes of people vote as a unified block supporting the very laws and politicians that regulate their own jobs (vote for your own pay raise, etc.). Unions also use this vote-by-mob approach to influence politics and the politicians that want their votes. It is my opinion that unionized workers, as individuals, are generally good hard-working people. However, once their thoughts and actions are controlled by the need to support their "team" (the union) the collective can, and often becomes, evil in many ways. Case in point: UAW contract clause that causes car companies to have to retain workers displaced by automation. These workers earn full salary to do absolutely nothing. The Chinese have got to be laughing their asses off when they see us self-destruct this way. Teacher unions are yet another example. The list of evils is too long to list here. The most basic one is the inability to fire bad or even down-right criminal teachers. We would be able to move at a very different pace if unions went away. I won't hold my breath.

yardie 14y ago
A long list not backed with facts of any kind? This is normally called a diatribe. As for the Chinese, the CCP is the largest union in China. As for the US, 12% of all workers are unionized[1]. With them representing 1:8 waged workers whats to stop other 7 from picking up the pace and showing those union workers how to really do a job? [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
- gaius 14y ago
  Consider GM versus... Any other car manufacturer.
  - yardie 14y ago
    What's your point exactly? Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda are unionized as well. GM's problem had everything to do with management (too many cars, too many models, too many franchises, too many factories, and too many dealerships).
- robomartin 14y ago
  If don't have to back-up anything. If you are interested you go and do the research, it's actually very easy these days. Also, I worked within a unionized environment for eight years. I have seen the beast from the inside. What it does to people and businesses is nothing less than horrible. I have seen people come to work drunk knowing full-well that they could not be fired for it. I have seen people sleeping at work. Again, can't fire them. I have seen people refuse to help out where help was needed because it was not in their union contract ("Can you help me move this (light) box? No. It's not in my contract"). I've seen people get paid $150K per year to do what most anyone would consider nothing or very little. Jobs that in the "outside" free market would not justify more than $15 per hour suddenly become $50 per hour + benefits + pension for life jobs in an unionized environment. When you look at the fact that government is loaded with unionized workers one of the most immediate reactions should be: As tax-payers we are getting shafted. These people are getting paid lots more than their free market equivalents. Lots. And, of course, when you count lifetime pensions funded by taxpayers the numbers are far worst. OK, since you are an evidence kind of guy (or gal, I don't know) I'll take the time to give you some of that data. Let's use this link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm Oh, wait a minute, that's the link YOU provided. Yup. Thanks. I reviewed the page and came up with these interesting notes: "In 2011, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $938, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $729." Translation: If you do the math, median union worker wages are about 29% higher than equivalent free market workers. I'll leave it to the reader to Google a little and find data comparing wage differentials by occupation. Here's another one: "In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector." Sounds fairly benign, right? Until you read the next two sentences: "The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent." So, on average 37% of government workers are unionized. And, if you look locally, over 43% belong to a union. Only 7% of free-market workers are unionized! Something stinks here. Government workers figured-out how to game the system by unionizing. We now work for them. This is where the huge conflict of interest is created. Government workers belong to unions in staggering numbers and they vote and act as a block. They also enlist the support of other unions in getting behind legislation and politicians who will keep throwing candy at them. Again, all you have to do is look at California and the disaster that politicians and unions have created to understand how badly this can degenerate. There's plenty of evidence of this on the web: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/california-pension-debt-121411.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/california-pensi... http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-336894-california-public.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-336894-california... http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ A quote from one of these links: "a research team based at Stanford University and headed by Joe Nation, a former Democratic state assemblyman, released an updated analysis of state and local pension funds, concluding that they are underfunded by hundreds of billions of dollars and, unless reformed, will seriously erode future financing of schools, health care and other services." Anyhow, you can believe what you'd like. You can believe that corporations are evil. And that's fine. That will not change reality. Even when corporations cover everything form the corner bakery to Apple. And, BTW, nobody ever claims that Apple is evil. It's those other evil corporations. Also, nobody ever seems to state at what revenue level corporations become evil. Or after what number of employees? By any measure Apple should be one of the most evil corporations in the world. The reality that remains unchanged is that we and our children are very likely to have to pay for union pensions for the rest of our lives. And, that, among other things, is horribly wrong. While I could be more ignorant than I have a clue (as someone in this thread kindly pointed out) the sad reality is that even this does not alter the facts. If it did I'd gladly declare myself to be an utter idiot. The facts are that unions are causing and will continue to cause a lot of damage at many levels. Here in California we ought to seriously look at the idea of, at the very least, removing them from government.
cynest 14y ago
Why single out unions? The same arguments can be made for any group of people with a vested in the status quo.
- jamesrcole 14y ago
  Purely as a comment on the structure of their argument -- I'm not sure where I stand on the issue they're talking about -- they're not singling out unions. They're just saying it's a necessary condition, not saying it's the only necessary condition. Surely someone can talk about an individual condition without having to talk about them all.
saraid216 14y ago
If you fix everything else wrong with society, I'll support your disbandment of unions. But until the broken bone is mended, the cast stays on.
quaunaut 14y ago
If you seriously think that using a couple of the worst offenders in Unions is a good argument for abandoning unionized labor, you're more ignorant than you have any clue. You could easily use the same kinds of arguments for why we should abandon corporations, governments, or really anything at all. When you look at the majority of Unions- and yes, even those in California- they are one of the few things holding the economy up. As much as I'm one of those who wants to push science, evolution, and transhumanism to it's limit, when it comes down to it, a distributed economy beats a top-heavy economy every time, no matter what. Every example of economies with this large a difference in income disparity ends in disaster- literally every example we've ever had. There are no examples of where it was a good thing. The common sentiment of futurists is 'a little pain to get us to utopia', but the problem is, that pain can kill us very quickly. Without unionized labor, you immediately and wholeheartedly condemn millions to poverty. Furthermore, you're simultaneously abolishing free speech- for what's the use of free speech, if no one can hear you? My biggest issue with the anti-union crowd is that they don't realize that Unions are just another competing force, except instead of competing in the marketplace, they're competing in the production line. Why do you think our golden example, Silicon Valley, has managed to stay away from unions? It's because of treating their workers pretty damn well, by anyone's standards. But as long as there are people working 16 hour days in 110 degree weather for $20 an hour in Central California, WITH the help of a union? You're never going to have a good argument that unions aren't a powerful force for good. You're just ignoring the other side.
- goostavos 14y ago
  >My biggest issue with the anti-union crowd is that they don't realize that Unions are just another competing force, except instead of competing in the marketplace, they're competing in the production line. Why do you think our golden example, Silicon Valley, has managed to stay away from unions? It's because of treating their workers pretty damn well, by anyone's standards. I disagree. The problems with unions is that they don't have to compete. If hiring a union worker were an option, then yes, they'd be competing. But that's not how it works. It's hire them or be fined. Period. That's how it works. Being forced to hire a local guy at $40 an hour just because I'm in their jurisdiction is strictly anti-competitive. The world isn't huge anymore. Forcing to hire local makes no sense when there are better people (ahem me! ahem) suited for the work.
anigbrowl 14y ago
I don't much care for unions and have severe reservations about their compatibility with public service in particular. However, if you think of a union as an employee-owned labor supply corporation that has a right to enter into exclusive contracts with labor purchasers, people clearly have a right to organize, market, and sell their labor, and suppliers asking buyers to enter into exclusive purchasing agreements for several years at a time is not so weird.
scarmig 14y ago
You could just as well rewrite that for any other politically convenient target: We are not going to evolve as a society until we abolish corporatized capital. I know that this is a strong statement. And it is likely to attract serious disagreement. Take this as on man's opinion and nothing else. It is my contention that in modern times corporatized capital has done absolutely nothing good for our society. I understand that they had a time and a place to exist. Today, there's far more evidence of the damage they cause than the positive effects they may have been intended to produce. Corporations create a false economy. One where people are paid exorbitant amounts of money for work that could be done for less in an open market. Corporations also create stagnation both in terms of innovation and of human capital. Corporate shareholders exist in an isolated cocoon where there is no need to excel or evolve past your station. Corporations damage competitiveness at a national and international level. Corporations damage the economy and destroy industries by creating contracts with unreasonable terms, benefits and pensions. Corporations in government create a nasty conflict-of-interest situation where hordes of shareholders contribute as a unified block supporting the very laws and politicians that regulate their own companies (oversee your own pollution, legal compliance, etc.). Corporations also use this vote-by-dollar approach to influence politics and the politicians that want their cash. It is my opinion that corporate managers and shareholders, as individuals, are generally good hard-working people. However, once their thoughts and actions are controlled by the need to support their "team" (the corporation) the collective can, and often becomes, evil in many ways. Case in point: HP had a contract clause that caused Carly Fiorina to get paid tens of millions of dollars just for getting fired. She earned tens of thousands of times the average worker's salary to actively damage the business. The Chinese have got to be laughing their asses off when they see us self-destruct this way. Fossil fuel companies are yet another example. The list of evils is too long to list here. The most basic one is the inability to tax them for emitting pollution that threatens to criminally kill millions. We would be able to move at a very different pace if corporations went away. I won't hold my breath.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Upvoting this - not because I agree with an anti-corporate stance but because you highlighted the problem with taking an issue out of context.
brc 14y ago
I don't think unions exactly are the problem. What is a problem is special treatment for unions, which has been achieved by union influence over policy makers. Of course, the same argument applies to many other problems, so it's not all the fault of unions. What I do think should be applied to unions is the freedom to work in an industry without being covered by a union agreement. There should also be competition between unions for members, which in most cases doesn't exist. Unions use their monopoly positions in particular industries to screw the members over and the industry in which they are entrenched. Competition between unions could allow workers to choose which union they belong to, and thus which agreement they wish to work under. The freedom for employees to associate to increase their bargaining power isn't necessarily a bad thing, in many ways, it's a good counterweight to the ability for people who own capital to force people into bad deals. What is a problem is protection of union monopolies and regulations that tend towards unions being able to control industries. This is the same as any other organisation or group that gets a government mandated monopoly. However, it's good to see these things being civilly discussed. You shouldn't be ashamed to hold an anti-union point of view if you can express it by argument and not by insult.
- robomartin 14y ago
  As is always the case, the problem has many facets. Yes, you are right, the special treatment of unions is a problem. The other problem is what unions extract or obtain from employers by sheer force. In any other context this would be called extortion. I'll grant that there are places where unionized labor is probably still justified. Once case that comes to mind is mining. I say this out of complete ignorance as I don't know the first thing about the mining industry. Maybe even that industry is beyond unions as well. One place where unions do not belong is in government. Here unions create a "gang" of people who act against their employer --our government-- and, of course, us, the tax payers. This is a huge conflict of interest. It creates a never-ending need for more and more money rather than creating a competitive environment where creativity and efficiency are rewarded, just like anywhere else.

yardie 14y ago

A long list not backed with facts of any kind? This is normally called a diatribe. As for the Chinese, the CCP is the largest union in China. As for the US, 12% of all workers are unionized[1]. With them representing 1:8 waged workers whats to stop other 7 from picking up the pace and showing those union workers how to really do a job? [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

gaius 14y ago
Consider GM versus... Any other car manufacturer.
- yardie 14y ago
  What's your point exactly? Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda are unionized as well. GM's problem had everything to do with management (too many cars, too many models, too many franchises, too many factories, and too many dealerships).
robomartin 14y ago
If don't have to back-up anything. If you are interested you go and do the research, it's actually very easy these days. Also, I worked within a unionized environment for eight years. I have seen the beast from the inside. What it does to people and businesses is nothing less than horrible. I have seen people come to work drunk knowing full-well that they could not be fired for it. I have seen people sleeping at work. Again, can't fire them. I have seen people refuse to help out where help was needed because it was not in their union contract ("Can you help me move this (light) box? No. It's not in my contract"). I've seen people get paid $150K per year to do what most anyone would consider nothing or very little. Jobs that in the "outside" free market would not justify more than $15 per hour suddenly become $50 per hour + benefits + pension for life jobs in an unionized environment. When you look at the fact that government is loaded with unionized workers one of the most immediate reactions should be: As tax-payers we are getting shafted. These people are getting paid lots more than their free market equivalents. Lots. And, of course, when you count lifetime pensions funded by taxpayers the numbers are far worst. OK, since you are an evidence kind of guy (or gal, I don't know) I'll take the time to give you some of that data. Let's use this link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm Oh, wait a minute, that's the link YOU provided. Yup. Thanks. I reviewed the page and came up with these interesting notes: "In 2011, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $938, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $729." Translation: If you do the math, median union worker wages are about 29% higher than equivalent free market workers. I'll leave it to the reader to Google a little and find data comparing wage differentials by occupation. Here's another one: "In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector." Sounds fairly benign, right? Until you read the next two sentences: "The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent." So, on average 37% of government workers are unionized. And, if you look locally, over 43% belong to a union. Only 7% of free-market workers are unionized! Something stinks here. Government workers figured-out how to game the system by unionizing. We now work for them. This is where the huge conflict of interest is created. Government workers belong to unions in staggering numbers and they vote and act as a block. They also enlist the support of other unions in getting behind legislation and politicians who will keep throwing candy at them. Again, all you have to do is look at California and the disaster that politicians and unions have created to understand how badly this can degenerate. There's plenty of evidence of this on the web: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/california-pension-debt-121411.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/california-pensi... http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-336894-california-public.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-336894-california... http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ A quote from one of these links: "a research team based at Stanford University and headed by Joe Nation, a former Democratic state assemblyman, released an updated analysis of state and local pension funds, concluding that they are underfunded by hundreds of billions of dollars and, unless reformed, will seriously erode future financing of schools, health care and other services." Anyhow, you can believe what you'd like. You can believe that corporations are evil. And that's fine. That will not change reality. Even when corporations cover everything form the corner bakery to Apple. And, BTW, nobody ever claims that Apple is evil. It's those other evil corporations. Also, nobody ever seems to state at what revenue level corporations become evil. Or after what number of employees? By any measure Apple should be one of the most evil corporations in the world. The reality that remains unchanged is that we and our children are very likely to have to pay for union pensions for the rest of our lives. And, that, among other things, is horribly wrong. While I could be more ignorant than I have a clue (as someone in this thread kindly pointed out) the sad reality is that even this does not alter the facts. If it did I'd gladly declare myself to be an utter idiot. The facts are that unions are causing and will continue to cause a lot of damage at many levels. Here in California we ought to seriously look at the idea of, at the very least, removing them from government.

cynest 14y ago

Why single out unions? The same arguments can be made for any group of people with a vested in the status quo.

jamesrcole 14y ago
Purely as a comment on the structure of their argument -- I'm not sure where I stand on the issue they're talking about -- they're not singling out unions. They're just saying it's a necessary condition, not saying it's the only necessary condition. Surely someone can talk about an individual condition without having to talk about them all.

saraid216 14y ago

If you fix everything else wrong with society, I'll support your disbandment of unions. But until the broken bone is mended, the cast stays on.

quaunaut 14y ago

If you seriously think that using a couple of the worst offenders in Unions is a good argument for abandoning unionized labor, you're more ignorant than you have any clue. You could easily use the same kinds of arguments for why we should abandon corporations, governments, or really anything at all. When you look at the majority of Unions- and yes, even those in California- they are one of the few things holding the economy up. As much as I'm one of those who wants to push science, evolution, and transhumanism to it's limit, when it comes down to it, a distributed economy beats a top-heavy economy every time, no matter what. Every example of economies with this large a difference in income disparity ends in disaster- literally every example we've ever had. There are no examples of where it was a good thing. The common sentiment of futurists is 'a little pain to get us to utopia', but the problem is, that pain can kill us very quickly. Without unionized labor, you immediately and wholeheartedly condemn millions to poverty. Furthermore, you're simultaneously abolishing free speech- for what's the use of free speech, if no one can hear you? My biggest issue with the anti-union crowd is that they don't realize that Unions are just another competing force, except instead of competing in the marketplace, they're competing in the production line. Why do you think our golden example, Silicon Valley, has managed to stay away from unions? It's because of treating their workers pretty damn well, by anyone's standards. But as long as there are people working 16 hour days in 110 degree weather for $20 an hour in Central California, WITH the help of a union? You're never going to have a good argument that unions aren't a powerful force for good. You're just ignoring the other side.

goostavos 14y ago
>My biggest issue with the anti-union crowd is that they don't realize that Unions are just another competing force, except instead of competing in the marketplace, they're competing in the production line. Why do you think our golden example, Silicon Valley, has managed to stay away from unions? It's because of treating their workers pretty damn well, by anyone's standards. I disagree. The problems with unions is that they don't have to compete. If hiring a union worker were an option, then yes, they'd be competing. But that's not how it works. It's hire them or be fined. Period. That's how it works. Being forced to hire a local guy at $40 an hour just because I'm in their jurisdiction is strictly anti-competitive. The world isn't huge anymore. Forcing to hire local makes no sense when there are better people (ahem me! ahem) suited for the work.

anigbrowl 14y ago

I don't much care for unions and have severe reservations about their compatibility with public service in particular. However, if you think of a union as an employee-owned labor supply corporation that has a right to enter into exclusive contracts with labor purchasers, people clearly have a right to organize, market, and sell their labor, and suppliers asking buyers to enter into exclusive purchasing agreements for several years at a time is not so weird.

scarmig 14y ago

You could just as well rewrite that for any other politically convenient target: We are not going to evolve as a society until we abolish corporatized capital. I know that this is a strong statement. And it is likely to attract serious disagreement. Take this as on man's opinion and nothing else. It is my contention that in modern times corporatized capital has done absolutely nothing good for our society. I understand that they had a time and a place to exist. Today, there's far more evidence of the damage they cause than the positive effects they may have been intended to produce. Corporations create a false economy. One where people are paid exorbitant amounts of money for work that could be done for less in an open market. Corporations also create stagnation both in terms of innovation and of human capital. Corporate shareholders exist in an isolated cocoon where there is no need to excel or evolve past your station. Corporations damage competitiveness at a national and international level. Corporations damage the economy and destroy industries by creating contracts with unreasonable terms, benefits and pensions. Corporations in government create a nasty conflict-of-interest situation where hordes of shareholders contribute as a unified block supporting the very laws and politicians that regulate their own companies (oversee your own pollution, legal compliance, etc.). Corporations also use this vote-by-dollar approach to influence politics and the politicians that want their cash. It is my opinion that corporate managers and shareholders, as individuals, are generally good hard-working people. However, once their thoughts and actions are controlled by the need to support their "team" (the corporation) the collective can, and often becomes, evil in many ways. Case in point: HP had a contract clause that caused Carly Fiorina to get paid tens of millions of dollars just for getting fired. She earned tens of thousands of times the average worker's salary to actively damage the business. The Chinese have got to be laughing their asses off when they see us self-destruct this way. Fossil fuel companies are yet another example. The list of evils is too long to list here. The most basic one is the inability to tax them for emitting pollution that threatens to criminally kill millions. We would be able to move at a very different pace if corporations went away. I won't hold my breath.

anigbrowl 14y ago
Upvoting this - not because I agree with an anti-corporate stance but because you highlighted the problem with taking an issue out of context.

brc 14y ago

I don't think unions exactly are the problem. What is a problem is special treatment for unions, which has been achieved by union influence over policy makers. Of course, the same argument applies to many other problems, so it's not all the fault of unions. What I do think should be applied to unions is the freedom to work in an industry without being covered by a union agreement. There should also be competition between unions for members, which in most cases doesn't exist. Unions use their monopoly positions in particular industries to screw the members over and the industry in which they are entrenched. Competition between unions could allow workers to choose which union they belong to, and thus which agreement they wish to work under. The freedom for employees to associate to increase their bargaining power isn't necessarily a bad thing, in many ways, it's a good counterweight to the ability for people who own capital to force people into bad deals. What is a problem is protection of union monopolies and regulations that tend towards unions being able to control industries. This is the same as any other organisation or group that gets a government mandated monopoly. However, it's good to see these things being civilly discussed. You shouldn't be ashamed to hold an anti-union point of view if you can express it by argument and not by insult.

robomartin 14y ago
As is always the case, the problem has many facets. Yes, you are right, the special treatment of unions is a problem. The other problem is what unions extract or obtain from employers by sheer force. In any other context this would be called extortion. I'll grant that there are places where unionized labor is probably still justified. Once case that comes to mind is mining. I say this out of complete ignorance as I don't know the first thing about the mining industry. Maybe even that industry is beyond unions as well. One place where unions do not belong is in government. Here unions create a "gang" of people who act against their employer --our government-- and, of course, us, the tax payers. This is a huge conflict of interest. It creates a never-ending need for more and more money rather than creating a competitive environment where creativity and efficiency are rewarded, just like anywhere else.