Why are people so hostile to unions?

[Michael Hardner]

It worked? After spending 15 trillion over the fifty years the poverty rate remains almost the same as when the war started.

war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.^[6]

[Pliny]

Good example of 11 year old unbacked data!

WWWTT

Good example of head in the sand denial.

[Pliny]

war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.[6]

The war on poverty started in 1964 not 1958. It looks like from the graph in the site that was referenced things were improving without the war on poverty until 1964 when it was instituted.

[Argus]

Walmart...

Funny thing about Walmart. It doesn't operate in countries with a high degree of worker protection. For example, no Walmarts in Denmark or Norway or Sweden or Finland or France, and many others. I don't think there are any in the UK either, maybe none in Europe, though I'm not certain.

[Argus]

Everyone demonizes Wal-Mart because it does best what everyone is doing.

People who don't shop at Walmart because they believe all their mercy is crap from China and their workers get paid dirt better not shop at Loblaws, the Bay, Metro and any other retail location in your local mall.

Problem is most of us know people who have worked at Walmart, and who have worked at other locations. Walmart is generally considered to be the worst of employers. It treats both its employees and customers like crap. And all their stuff IS crap from China.

[Argus]

The best way to illustrate why the voodoo economics of the 'higher minimum wages benefit the economy' crowds is to take the extreme: what would happen if we made the minimum wage $100/hour? If you agree that $100/hour minimum wage would have negative effects that outweigh the benefits then you must also agree that every incremental increase in minimum wage has negative effects. The only difference is a question of magnitude.

This is logical gibberish, you know...

It's like saying speed limits should be abolished by suggesting that since setting the limit at 1k an hour would be silly, setting it at any rate would be equally silly.

[Argus]

I love how debates about Unions always boil down to the minimum wage and retail jobs. It's a scare tactic.

When one questions unions people just say that everyone will be like Walmart workers if not for unions.

You don't have to use Walmart as an example. There are all manner of employers, especially in the US "right to work" states, who treat their employees shabbily and pay scant attention to health and safety issues. Remember it was right up until WW2 that employers throughout the southern US were quite happy to take 'prisoners' as workers, knowing they were actually, in most cases, simply snatched off the streets and convicted of things like loitering by some kangaroo court intent on finding slave labor. They would be delighted to do it again today if they could. Business is largely amoral. If they can make/save money by abusing workers and treating them really crappy they will.

[Argus]

Here is a good example of Union chicanery to fill its pockets.

http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/0v424a5vxje.php

A completely unverified claim from an anti-union web site?

Gee, I know I'M convinced....

[Argus]

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.

We do, huh? Could you name them? Oh, you can go to the human rights boards if you are a member of a recognized group and feel you were discriminated against on that basis. Otherwise you're completely unprotected. If your boss takes a dislike to you he or she can fire you, harass and bully you, and do pretty much whatever they want to make your life miserable. Not a thing you can do but quit.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Do you know why Walmart pays more than the minimum wage?

You have not established that they do.

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.

You have shown no evidence that walmart wages are better than other retail establishments.

They lobby government to raise minimum wages to increase the labour pool for them.

Cite please.

[Argus]

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

That makes zero sense. There have been any number of abusive private sector unions.

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.

You could say the same about unions in any number of private sector organizations except that unions are so weak in Canada now most large private sector organizations are non-union. In Europe, labour unions, even in the private sector, can bring things to a halt pretty quickly by withdrawing their services.

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.

This makes little sense. The worker is doing a presumably necessary job, whether it's being paid for through taxes or paid for through direct purchase. Why should he or she not have the same union rights as private sector workers?

[Argus]

No matter how much the union haters argue they can never get away from the fact that in places like northern Europe, where unions and worker protection is very strong, employment is high, pay is high, poverty and crime are very low, and social upheaval is nearly non-existent. The life of a worker in Sweden is infinitely better than workers in 'right to work' states in the US. And oddly enough this has not caused bread lines and gulags.

[Michael Hardner]

war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.[6]

The war on poverty started in 1964 not 1958. It looks like from the graph in the site that was referenced things were improving without the war on poverty until 1964 when it was instituted.

Yes, they were, but there was more of a drop after the WOP, I think. Read the wiki for a better summary.

[TimG]

The life of a worker in Sweden is infinitely better than workers in 'right to work' states in the US. And oddly enough this has not caused bread lines and gulags.

The European example requires one to look at southern Europe with similar labour laws and unemployment pushing 20%. It is worse for young people who are denied the opportunity to get work because of punitive labour laws that make sure employers never take risks by hiring someone.

Also, as we saw on the thread from Denmark these Scandinavian paradises are not necessarily sustainable.

Edited May 4, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

No matter how much the union haters argue they can never get away from the fact that in places like northern Europe, where unions and worker protection is very strong, employment is high, pay is high, poverty and crime are very low, and social upheaval is nearly non-existent. The life of a worker in Sweden is infinitely better than workers in 'right to work' states in the US. And oddly enough this has not caused bread lines and gulags.

Those are also some of the most expensive places to live in the world. When you adjust for cost of living, lower unionization results in better incomes. "Right To Work", even more so.

[Argus]

The European example requires one to look at southern Europe with similar labour laws and unemployment pushing 20%. It is worse for young people who are denied the opportunity to get work because of punitive labour laws that make sure employers never take risks by hiring someone.

Also, as we saw on the thread from Denmark these Scandinavian paradises are not necessarily sustainable.

If you choose to look at southern Europe, then contemplate that if northern Europe can do so well economically, with those labour laws, then the labour laws are beside the point insofar as the economic well-being of the nation is concerned. Therefore, why not have strong labour laws to protect workers? Denmark is looking at the generosity of their social services, not labour laws. A lot of people are abusing them (unsurprisingly) and they want to pull those back.

[Argus]

Those are also some of the most expensive places to live in the world. When you adjust for cost of living, lower unionization results in better incomes. "Right To Work", even more so.

They are expensive places to live because people have money. That's an inseparable fact of such statistics. Do you want a cheap place to live? Try Bangladesh. The social standard for most people living in the Nordic countries seems considerably higher than those living in 'right to work' states. Far less poverty, unemployment, crime, pollution, more vacation time, more holidays, kinder and gentler employers. What's not to like?

[TimG]

with those labour laws, then the labour laws are beside the point insofar as the economic well-being of the nation is concerned. Therefore, why not have strong labour laws to protect workers?

You can't say that. We know how punitive labour laws create disincentives that lead to higher unemployment. If this is not happening in Northern Europe then they are likely other aspects of their societies that counter act those effects (it is not because those effects don't exist). I am not willing to take the risk and wish to stick with the approach which I know produces the right incentives. Edited May 5, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

What's not to like?

Ask the millions of European emigres to the United States.

[Bryan]

They are expensive places to live because people have money. That's an inseparable fact of such statistics. Do you want a cheap place to live? Try Bangladesh. The social standard for most people living in the Nordic countries seems considerably higher than those living in 'right to work' states. Far less poverty, unemployment, crime, pollution, more vacation time, more holidays, kinder and gentler employers. What's not to like?

That's not how it shakes out though. The wages are not high enough to make up the difference. People in places with lower rates on unionization have a higher standard of living because they have more of their own money left after paying for basic things like food and shelter.

Like I said: When you adjust for cost of living, lower unionization results in better incomes.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Bryan

[eyeball]

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 sounds like the complete opposite of a free society actually, and I'm pretty sure that's why it's still against the law to fire anyone for trying to organize a union.

I suppose an employer can close up shop and move to China - the new world of the free.

Edited May 5, 2013 by eyeball

[Bryan]

That sounds like the complete opposite of a free society actually, and I'm pretty sure that's why it's still against the law to fire anyone for trying to organize a union.

Why does the owner of the company (the one taking the real risks) not have the kind of freedom the workers do? It's ridiculous that they have to allow a union if they don't want one on their property. THAT is a lack of freedom.

[Argus]

You can't say that. We know how punitive labour laws create disincentives that lead to higher unemployment. If this is not happening in Northern Europe then they are likely other aspects of their societies that counter act those effects (it is not because those effects don't exist). I am not willing to take the risk and wish to stick with the approach which I know produces the right incentives.

Higher unemployment? How do we 'know' this? Does Germany, a nation which also has strong labour laws, have higher unemployment? There are a number of nations which have laws to protect workers rights and strong unions. For the most part, their economic performance seems to be pretty strong. The nations which have virtually no protection against workers rights do not appear to be thriving at the moment. Bangladesh, as I said, being a nice example.

And simple basic employment is not necessarily the ultimate goal in life. Hell, institute slavery and everyone will have a job. Do you want 6% unemployment with most people trudging off to dangerous sweatshops which pay minimum wage and have no benefits, with enormous poverty in the country, or 8% with workers in decent jobs with decent protection and benefits, and much lower poverty?

[Argus]

Ask the millions of European emigres to the United States.

For the most part, Europeans stopped emigrating some decades ago when their standard of living surpassed that of the US. Oh, there are always the adventurous types who are attracted to the glitz and glamour, but there's no great desire among most Europeans to go live in a sink-or-swim society with enormous levels of crime and poverty and no social service network to speak of. The US gets about 400,000 immigrants from Asia, about the same from south of the border (not counting illegals), and about 80,000 from Europe, half that from eastern Europe, which has never managed to get its standard of living up to that of Western Europe.

Now given the high unemployment rate in some European countries I've been suggesting Canada change its system to allow for much higher immigration from Europe. The US should do the same. You could probably attract a lot more today. But that's temporary. And many of those will go home when the economic situation there improves. Europe is simply a much better place for most people to live. It's a matter of working to live there, vs living to work in the US.

[Argus]

Why does the owner of the company (the one taking the real risks) not have the kind of freedom the workers do? It's ridiculous that they have to allow a union if they don't want one on their property. THAT is a lack of freedom.

Because society has decided that he has to allow people there he doesn't like, be they unionists, blacks, homosexuals, women etc.