Why are people so hostile to unions?

[MadX]

Why are so many people on these forums hostile to unions. From what I understand, and I'm only a dumb kid in my early 20s so I'm probably still pretty stupid, unions raise wages and benefits for workers compared to non-unionized workers in the same occupations. I realize that they are not perfect and may possibly get greedy in certain situations. I can't say that about the prison guards in Alberta who are only protesting for safer working conditions, that doesn't seem like much to ask for. Besides I can't see unions being as bad as corporations. They are much more powerful and have the ability to inflict much more damage on the economy.

[Moonlight Graham]

...and I'm only a dumb kid in my early 20s so I'm probably still pretty stupid...

Congratulations, you are as wise as the great ancient Greek philosopher Socrates.

Socratic Wisdom:

Socrates' view of wisdom, as expressed by Plato in The Apology (20e-23c), is sometimes interpreted as an example of a humility theory of wisdom (see, for example, Ryan 1996 and Whitcomb, 2010). In Plato's Apology, Socrates and his friend Chaerephon visit the oracle at Delphi. As the story goes, Chaerephon asks the oracle whether anyone is wiser than Socrates. The oracle's answer is that Socrates is the wisest person. Socrates reports that he is puzzled by this answer since so many other people in the community are well known for their extensive knowledge and wisdom, and yet Socrates claims that he lacks knowledge and wisdom. Socrates does an investigation to get to the bottom of this puzzle. He interrogates a series of politicians, poets, and craftsmen. As one would expect, Socrates' investigation reveals that those who claim to have knowledge either do not really know any of the things they claim to know, or else know far less than they proclaim to know. The most knowledgeable of the bunch, the craftsmen, know about their craft, but they claim to know things far beyond the scope of their expertise. Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know things he does not know, nor the vice of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom...Socrates is wise because he, unlike the others, believes he is not wise, whereas the poets, politicians, and craftsmen arrogantly and falsely believe they are wise.

[Bryan]

My personal hostility towards unions is primarily from having worked several union jobs. I'll take the word and actions of a corporation over that of a union any day of the week. Unions reward laziness, institutionalize inefficiency, kill profitability, and force people to join against their will. They turn the employee-management relationship into one that is adversarial, when they should see each other as part of the same team with the same goals. Unions are a job killing parasite.

I particularly dislike public sector unions. Because governments can't just shut down if they can't afford operational costs, unions are actually holding the taxpayers hostage with each negotiation. People who don't make as much money as the govt. employees are expected to dig into their pockets to pay for the demands of people who are already better off. It's robbery.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bryan

[TimG]

I would not have an issue with unions if they confined their negotiations to wages alone. The trouble comes in when they on provisions like seniority or work rules designed to make the corporation/government run less efficiently (i.e. require the employer to hire more people). They often create a system where hard work is no longer rewarded but vilified and that simply offends me.

Edited May 2, 2013 by TimG

[silver72]

There's bad and good in unions , just like there bad and good corporations and even governments. The reason the unions started was to protect workers rights from greedy corporation at the time. I think most views of people who really don't like them is they are envious, of not having the same work benefits, which I think ALL workers should have the same benefits in Canada. Why do we have to take away from workers , instead of upping the benefits. Corporation are the ones running countries and they are out to get rid of them and then workers will becomes slaves with no benefits and very low wage, is that what union haters want?

[Boges]

I can't quarrel with any Private Sector union. They have to work with the employer to provide whatever product or service being sold.

But I absolutely loath public sector unions. They provide a government mandated monopoly so when they don't get what they want they can withdraw their services and the people that pay their wage are S-O-L.

Just look at the potential Strike of Liqour Control Board workers in Ontario. Ontario forbids general stores (for the most part) to sell alcohol so LCBO's can hold the public hostage.

And when people claim they are only protecting "good" jobs they ignore the fact that their "good" jobs are being completely subsidized by taxpayers that probably have fewer benefits than them and can't retire nearly as early as they do. So it's completely disingenuous.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Boges

[MadX]

There's bad and good in unions , just like there bad and good corporations and even governments. The reason the unions started was to protect workers rights from greedy corporation at the time. I think most views of people who really don't like them is they are envious, of not having the same work benefits, which I think ALL workers should have the same benefits in Canada. Why do we have to take away from workers , instead of upping the benefits. Corporation are the ones running countries and they are out to get rid of them and then workers will becomes slaves with no benefits and very low wage, is that what union haters want?

That makes a lot of sense. I think that rather than being envious people should demand the same wages. I also believe that government should increase minimum wage to a living wage to reduce poverty. I'm not against tax cuts to business but only if they are conditional tax cuts that lead to more jobs and higher wages. I'm pro-union as well, some peoples arguments against them make sense in certain situations but I still feel corporations are worse. I work in a non-unionized environment, wages are a dollar above minimum wage and people are bullied, especially if they are young, female, physically small, non-assertive, or are a minority. I think even a bad union would be better than that.

[Boges]

That makes a lot of sense. I think that rather than being envious people should demand the same wages. I also believe that government should increase minimum wage to a living wage to reduce poverty. I'm not against tax cuts to business but only if they are conditional tax cuts that lead to more jobs and higher wages. I'm pro-union as well, some peoples arguments against them make sense in certain situations but I still feel corporations are worse. I work in a non-unionized environment, wages are a dollar above minimum wage and people are bullied, especially if they are young, female, physically small, non-assertive, or are a minority. I think even a bad union would be better than that.

Well you always have the choice to try and organize. And the employer has the choice to say no or fire anyone that tries. That's the benefit and burden living in a free society.

[Michael Hardner]

A word about public sector unions - having worked for the government, I know that it's one of the most mismanaged places out there, generally speaking. You have top managers as ministers, mostly lawyers who are in charge of a huge organization, and who are politically motivated. Their liasons are 'deputy ministers', who are adept at keeping their jobs and dealing with politics, but not necessarily running large organizations.

If you hate how the government makes hell for you when you have to apply for a health card, or renew your drivers's license, imagine working for them. This is why those workers need protection, IMO.

Now, NOBODY wins from excessive regulation and complication. The union's goals are to protect their workers, but there are ways to do so other than making the workplace too complex to manage. I'm 100% convince that there are many opportunities out there to deregulate, reduce overhead, and pass the savings and efficiencies onto workers AND taxpayers.

[MadX]

Well you always have the choice to try and organize. And the employer has the choice to say no or fire anyone that tries. That's the benefit and burden living in a free society.

That's not going to happen in the nonunionized environment I work in at this time. It is only temporary though and I will move on to better things soon. I think in a hostile anti-union environment like that the only way to have your rights respected is to know your province's labour laws and not allow anyone to assert dominance over you. I'm a pretty big guy and don't take crap off people so I'm not a target for bullying. Even though I'm young, I'm smarter than a lot of the bosses there (people get promoted because of internal politics, not capabilities) and I'm bigger than most of the people who work there. Size intimidates people. Fighting for better wages won't happen in such an environment. They only way to get higher wages if for workers of all low-paying occupations to unite and demand the government increase minimum wage.

[PIK]

Minimum wage is a entry wage not a living wage. Raise it more and whatever mom and pop store we have will be gone.

That makes a lot of sense. I think that rather than being envious people should demand the same wages. I also believe that government should increase minimum wage to a living wage to reduce poverty. I'm not against tax cuts to business but only if they are conditional tax cuts that lead to more jobs and higher wages. I'm pro-union as well, some peoples arguments against them make sense in certain situations but I still feel corporations are worse. I work in a non-unionized environment, wages are a dollar above minimum wage and people are bullied, especially if they are young, female, physically small, non-assertive, or are a minority. I think even a bad union would be better than that.

[Boges]

I'm young, I'm smarter than a lot of the bosses there (people get promoted because of internal politics, not capabilities)

Now hold on a second. How do you think it'll be any different in a Union environment where tenure is more important than anything else.

[MadX]

Now hold on a second. How do you think it'll be any different in a Union environment where tenure is more important than anything else.

In that aspect it probably wouldn't but wages would be higher, job satisfaction would be higher, poverty would be lower, and workplace bullying would be reduced. I never said unions were perfect but I can tell you what a non-unionized environment is like and its horrible. I think tenure is important but it shouldn't be the only determining factor in whether someone gets a job. So I agree with you on that point.

[Moonbox]

But I absolutely loath public sector unions. They provide a government mandated monopoly so when they don't get what they want they can withdraw their services and the people that pay their wage are S-O-L.

Just look at the potential Strike of Liqour Control Board workers in Ontario. Ontario forbids general stores (for the most part) to sell alcohol so LCBO's can hold the public hostage.

And when people claim they are only protecting "good" jobs they ignore the fact that their "good" jobs are being completely subsidized by taxpayers that probably have fewer benefits than them and can't retire nearly as early as they do. So it's completely disingenuous.

Very well said. That pretty much exactly sums up what I know about the public sector.

[MadX]

Minimum wage is a entry wage not a living wage. Raise it more and whatever mom and pop store we have will be gone.

Valid point, I am a fan of small business. Not a big booster of corporations. I think a solution to this problem would be to offset minimum wage with a substantial tax break to small and medium businesses.

[Boges]

In that aspect it probably wouldn't but wages would be higher, job satisfaction would be higher, poverty would be lower, and workplace bullying would be reduced. I never said unions were perfect but I can tell you what a non-unionized environment is like and its horrible. I think tenure is important but it shouldn't be the only determining factor in whether someone gets a job. So I agree with you on that point.

You don't think bullying goes on in Unions? In Ontario when the teachers were having a spat with the government over paid/banked sick days, instead of striking the unions mandated that teacher were not allowed to take part in voluntary extra-curricular activities. It was later ruled that what the Union did was illegal.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-teachers-union-call-to-halt-voluntary-activities-was-illegal-strike-action-labour-board/article11053331/

It seems to me you only oppose the "bullying" because the wages aren't that good.

[MadX]

You don't think bullying goes on in Unions? In Ontario when the teachers were having a spat with the government over paid/banked sick days, instead of striking the unions mandated that teacher were not allowed to take part in voluntary extra-curricular activities. It was later ruled that what the Union did was illegal.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-teachers-union-call-to-halt-voluntary-activities-was-illegal-strike-action-labour-board/article11053331/

It seems to me you only oppose the "bullying" because the wages aren't that good.

I never said unions were perfect, and yes if the union wouldn't "allow" teachers to take part in extra-curricular activities, then yes, it is bullying and it is wrong. I oppose bullying in all environments, unionized and nonunionized alike. However, I think that bullying thrives in nonunionized environments because workers have less rights in such environments and the power differences between workers and employers are also magnified greatly. I don't oppose bullying because wages aren't good, I oppose both bullying and low wages. Are you stating you are in favour of low wages? Bullying isn't an issue for me as I am fairly large and assertive. I see it happen to my co-workers who are in a more precarious situation. I'm still young living at home so if I get fired it would suck but life wouldn't be over. Some of my co-workers are older, female, and have kids. They need the job more and as a result are forced to take more abuse. The supervisors bully the people who can't afford to leave more as well because they know they can.

[Boges]

I never said unions were perfect, and yes if the union wouldn't "allow" teachers to take part in extra-curricular activities, then yes, it is bullying and it is wrong. I oppose bullying in all environments, unionized and nonunionized alike. However, I think that bullying thrives in nonunionized environments because workers have less rights in such environments and the power differences between workers and employers are also magnified greatly. I don't oppose bullying because wages aren't good, I oppose both bullying and low wages. Are you stating you are in favour of low wages? Bullying isn't an issue for me as I am fairly large and assertive. I see it happen to my co-workers who are in a more precarious situation. I'm still young living at home so if I get fired it would suck but life wouldn't be over. Some of my co-workers are older, female, and have kids. They need the job more and as a result are forced to take more abuse. The supervisors bully the people who can't afford to leave more as well because they know they can.

Wages are relative. Some would call my wages very low, other would call them very high.

I think there's a sentiment out there, that all work requires a wage that would support a certain standard of living. But as wages go up so does the cost of living.

I recently went across the border do a little bit of shopping in the US and saw how much lower the cost of living is there. People here would say that it's at the expense of lower wages BUT things cost a lot more here so who ends up ahead if you have to allocate more of your income, regardless of what you make, to pay for the increased wages of others.

These issues aren't completely black and white. Recently a union in Ontario allowed a plant to close in Ontario because they wouldn't yield to the wage cuts the employers asked. The Canadian workers made $30+/hour while the employer was prepared to take operations to the US where workers would made $16/hour.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/03/caterpillar_closes_electromotive_plant_in_london.html

People call this a race to the bottom. And I totally concede it a worrying trend. But I imagine $16/hour goes a lot farther in allowing someone live a quality life in Indiana than it does in Ontario where the wages are higher, but so are the taxes and cost of everything.

Allowing EVERYONE to make a "Union" wage won't necessarily make everyone's life better as it increases the cost of living as well. The minimum wage in Australia is $14/hour. $14/hour certainly isn't the "living wage" it is here in Canada because the price of everything in the country is far more.

[Pliny]

Valid point, I am a fan of small business. Not a big booster of corporations. I think a solution to this problem would be to offset minimum wage with a substantial tax break to small and medium businesses.

So government should play favourites? Giving privileges to some that others don't have, sort of level the playing field?

I was a member of a public union in the late seventies early eighties during a recession and I had no clue there was a recession. People talked about it but it had little effect on me. I sort of wondered why the malls seemed so quiet.

The times were quite politically charged and tumultuous. Trudeau's arrogance was a turn off and Carter seemed incompetent to deal with his countries economic troubles and that was the extent of my knowledge of politics.

But you can't really understand politics unless you have some understanding of economics.

Was it a good thing I was insulated from the recession? I suppose. But it certainly wasn't a good thing that I could remain indifferent to the political and economic morass that existed mainly out of ignorance. What was going on in the world was important, more important than the tiny world of union membership.

Economically, government attempts to keep things chugging along with a specific rate of economic growth. Not too fast not too slow. It attempts to bring social justice and equality to the market in respect of wages, worker's rights and benefits. In trying to adjust perceived imbalances in the economy it creates unnatural imbalances and upset in society. Some are happy with the new found privileges and some aren't creating divisive elements in society. When there is a natural economic balance in society most people find the level of responsibility they feel comfortable with and, as long as they are not oppressed, can improve upon it form there upgrading their standard of living, their income, etc. Instead of the person finding his level of comfort in society government attempts to set it for him by lowering standards all can achieve or making laws that attempt to bring about equality, out of some concept of social justice.

It is easy to say people need to make a living wage and thus the minimum wage should be high enough people can live on it. Hell, the middle income family today cannot live on a single income and household income means two people must make an income to maintain a middle income standard.

And the worry is that of a living wage for an individual? What occurs under minimum wage laws is that certain people will not be working at all. Not saying that they don't have the ability but they may need to develop working skills, or language skills or what ever is necessary to improve their labour marketability and thus their ability to contribute to society.

Unions, used to have a place, when no worker rights were established. Thanks to advocacy by such things as Women's groups we have laws that guarantee rights and equality of treatment in the workplace. Unfortunately, child labour laws are a bit stringent. The only way a child can contribute to society is if they are a family member of someone who owns a farm or business and he does chores or helps out that is part of learning marketable labour skills and the child only learns that society owes him not that he is a part of it or contributes to its creation.

Unions have fallen to just becoming an opposition force to management when management is already forced by law to treat workers fairly. certainly workers can become united to bring injustices to the attention of all but otherwise they are not necessary and there is an argument for the fact that they never really were necessary.

[MadX]

So government should play favourites? Giving privileges to some that others don't have, sort of level the playing field?

I was a member of a public union in the late seventies early eighties during a recession and I had no clue there was a recession. People talked about it but it had little effect on me. I sort of wondered why the malls seemed so quiet.

The times were quite politically charged and tumultuous. Trudeau's arrogance was a turn off and Carter seemed incompetent to deal with his countries economic troubles and that was the extent of my knowledge of politics.

But you can't really understand politics unless you have some understanding of economics.

Was it a good thing I was insulated from the recession? I suppose. But it certainly wasn't a good thing that I could remain indifferent to the political and economic morass that existed mainly out of ignorance. What was going on in the world was important, more important than the tiny world of union membership.

Economically, government attempts to keep things chugging along with a specific rate of economic growth. Not too fast not too slow. It attempts to bring social justice and equality to the market in respect of wages, worker's rights and benefits. In trying to adjust perceived imbalances in the economy it creates unnatural imbalances and upset in society. Some are happy with the new found privileges and some aren't creating divisive elements in society. When there is a natural economic balance in society most people find the level of responsibility they feel comfortable with and, as long as they are not oppressed, can improve upon it form there upgrading their standard of living, their income, etc. Instead of the person finding his level of comfort in society government attempts to set it for him by lowering standards all can achieve or making laws that attempt to bring about equality, out of some concept of social justice.

It is easy to say people need to make a living wage and thus the minimum wage should be high enough people can live on it. Hell, the middle income family today cannot live on a single income and household income means two people must make an income to maintain a middle income standard.

And the worry is that of a living wage for an individual? What occurs under minimum wage laws is that certain people will not be working at all. Not saying that they don't have the ability but they may need to develop working skills, or language skills or what ever is necessary to improve their labour marketability and thus their ability to contribute to society.

Unions, used to have a place, when no worker rights were established. Thanks to advocacy by such things as Women's groups we have laws that guarantee rights and equality of treatment in the workplace. Unfortunately, child labour laws are a bit stringent. The only way a child can contribute to society is if they are a family member of someone who owns a farm or business and he does chores or helps out that is part of learning marketable labour skills and the child only learns that society owes him not that he is a part of it or contributes to its creation.

Unions have fallen to just becoming an opposition force to management when management is already forced by law to treat workers fairly. certainly workers can become united to bring injustices to the attention of all but otherwise they are not necessary and there is an argument for the fact that they never really were necessary.

We have guarantees by laws but those laws aren't always enforced. Like I said earlier, workplace bullying is rampant and women tend to be prime targets as do minorities and people who are not assertive. I think as far as tax cuts go, small and medium businesses need it more because they are not as profitable as large corporations. Also when small and medium businesses do well the money is more likely to stay in the communities.

[Pliny]

Wages are relative. Some would call my wages very low, other would call them very high.

I agree with the basic idea presented in this post. It illustrates that money is simply a measuring stick. Changes in the overall amount of it will simply adjust the wages and prices of the society in accordingly. Thus, increasing the amount and availability of money with minimum wage laws or other such laws only has an initial temporary positive impact for a few, a lasting negative impact for others, and the same people who are poor are still poor.

[MadX]

Wages are relative. Some would call my wages very low, other would call them very high.

I think there's a sentiment out there, that all work requires a wage that would support a certain standard of living. But as wages go up so does the cost of living.

I recently went across the border do a little bit of shopping in the US and saw how much lower the cost of living is there. People here would say that it's at the expense of lower wages BUT things cost a lot more here so who ends up ahead if you have to allocate more of your income, regardless of what you make, to pay for the increased wages of others.

These issues aren't completely black and white. Recently a union in Ontario allowed a plant to close in Ontario because they wouldn't yield to the wage cuts the employers asked. The Canadian workers made $30+/hour while the employer was prepared to take operations to the US where workers would made $16/hour.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/03/caterpillar_closes_electromotive_plant_in_london.html

People call this a race to the bottom. And I totally concede it a worrying trend. But I imagine $16/hour goes a lot farther in allowing someone live a quality life in Indiana than it does in Ontario where the wages are higher, but so are the taxes and cost of everything.

Allowing EVERYONE to make a "Union" wage won't necessarily make everyone's life better as it increases the cost of living as well. The minimum wage in Australia is $14/hour. $14/hour certainly isn't the "living wage" it is here in Canada because the price of everything in the country is far more.

The certain standard of living I refer to is a living wage. This means a clean safe home, enough food to eat, and a small amount of money for recreation. It doesn't mean going on expensive vacations or eating at fancy restaurants. It means not having to go into debt to meet basic needs. In a country as well off as Canada, its not much to ask.

[Pliny]

We have guarantees by laws but those laws aren't always enforced. Like I said earlier, workplace bullying is rampant and women tend to be prime targets as do minorities and people who are not assertive. I think as far as tax cuts go, small and medium businesses need it more because they are not as profitable as large corporations. Also when small and medium businesses do well the money is more likely to stay in the communities.

Vote NDP then.

[TimG]

I think there's a sentiment out there, that all work requires a wage that would support a certain standard of living. But as wages go up so does the cost of living.

This is the fundamental paradox of socialism. It is simply not possible for people to live what we call a middle class existence without masses of people lower on the income scale providing the goods and services that the middle class wants/needs. If the wages of these masses of low wage workers rises then the standard of living for the 'middle class' drops.

We have set up a global society where national borders create the illusion that 'equal' societies can exist but it is simply an illusion where the poor are removed from the accounting because they live in another country.

[Pliny]

We have guarantees by laws but those laws aren't always enforced.

Thank God in some cases. You mean government chooses when it enforces laws?

Like I said earlier, workplace bullying is rampant and women tend to be prime targets as do minorities and people who are not assertive.

It's rampant, is it? Do they just bring this to your attention and not the government's attention or is the government

just not interested?

I think as far as tax cuts go, small and medium businesses need it more because they are not as profitable as large corporations.

A simple yes, I believe government should use privilege and bias as an economic tool, would have sufficed.

I already know why you think they should.

Also when small and medium businesses do well the money is more likely to stay in the communities.

Really? Is that a proven fact?

Do you know why Walmart pays more than the minimum wage? So people that work at small and medium businesses will flock to their doors for a better wage and Walmart doesn't care if the minimum wage is raised fifty cents or a dollar they still pay a better wage. They lobby government to raise minimum wages to increase the labour pool for them. Increasing the minimum wage means a lot of small businesses will be laying off people if not closing their doors. How is that helping?