Why are people so hostile to unions?

[Argus]

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.

To which I say again, then why doesn't Bangladesh have a higher standard of living? The US system rests upon a 'mine is mine' philosophy. Are there sick people? Tough. Are there poor people? Let em starve. Old people? Send em off on ice flows. So while their lower taxes allow them to keep more it's at the expense of a level of poverty, misery and crime no western European nation would tolerate.

[eyeball]

Why does the owner of the company (the one taking the real risks) not have the kind of freedom the workers do?

Because some owners have proven to be more of a risk.

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.

A union is in people's heads and hearts, some owners use theirs to win their employees. That's free too.

[Canuckistani]

To which I say again, then why doesn't Bangladesh have a higher standard of living? The US system rests upon a 'mine is mine' philosophy. Are there sick people? Tough. Are there poor people? Let em starve. Old people? Send em off on ice flows. So while their lower taxes allow them to keep more it's at the expense of a level of poverty, misery and crime no western European nation would tolerate.

Actually US middle class prosperity and the US system were based on unionism. American unions fought hard and bloody battles to improve things for the American worker, which greatly increased people earning a middle class income and fueled the boom that came from all that disposable income buying American made products. Some people take the advances for workers made by unions for granted, but they are not and are steadily being eroded.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Nice try....but wrong given the number of European born immigrants in the U.S., now numbering about 5,000,000. In fact, emigres from Eastern Europe have actually increased in recent decades. Immigration has certainly slowed, but it has not "stopped". Like more Canadians going to the U.S. as a percentage of total population, the U.S. remains the top destination for emigres from around the world.

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.

The US has never had a problem attracting immigrants, including those from Europe. Just ask the former governor of California.

[TimG]

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.

And there are other nations with the same or stricter laws which have a massive unemployment so obviously there is no correlation. That said, we do know the basic law of economics is an increase the price there will result in less demand. Consequently any law that increases the cost of employment will result in less employment unless there are strong mitigating factors.

I don't know what the mitigating factors are in the northern Europe but we have absolutely no reason to believe they are at work here. Given the lack of information I will assume the southern European experience is what we will see here.

Frankly, employment regulations that we have today are absurd because they are designed for 9-5 weekday work that does not simply exist any more. The law needs to focus on letting employees and employers work out their own arrangements that suit them.

Edited May 5, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually US middle class prosperity and the US system were based on unionism. American unions fought hard and bloody battles to improve things for the American worker, which greatly increased people earning a middle class income and fueled the boom that came from all that disposable income buying American made products. Some people take the advances for workers made by unions for granted, but they are not and are steadily being eroded.

Yes and no, as the total percentage of unionized employees has declined in the U.S. since 1950, before the majority of the post WW2 boom. Only the public sector has seen overall growth in union employees.

Edited May 5, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

Some people take the advances for workers made by unions for granted, but they are not and are steadily being eroded.

Unions had a place and time. But all of the important gains have been encoded into employment standard laws so there is no need for them any more. Unions are as obsolete as a manual typewriter. Edited May 5, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

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.

Link?

I don't find that to be true:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/12/17/closer-look-at-union-vs-nonunion-workers-wages/

But to the extent there is a union wage premium, the added cost of dues doesnt appear to negate it.

Then theres the question of benefits: 94% of private-sector union members have access to health-care benefits, versus 67% of nonunion members, according to BLS.

Edited May 5, 2013 by jacee

[margrace]

What rose garden do you live in, the employers one goal in life since the inception of unions has been to get rid of them and have their slaves back again. And sad to say with our Canadian Gov't they are winning the war

[bush_cheney2004]

By federal law, Canadian Forces cannot be "unionized".

[Guest]

What rose garden do you live in, the employers one goal in life since the inception of unions has been to get rid of them and have their slaves back again. And sad to say with our Canadian Gov't they are winning the war

That's funny, because my employer treats me very well. It's refreshing to be treated on merit and not on grade or seniority.

[jacee]

What rose garden do you live in, the employers one goal in life since the inception of unions has been to get rid of them and have their slaves back again.

Sooooo true!

That's why employers are rushing overseas where they can again reap exhorbitant profits from slave wages.

[Bryan]

That's funny, because my employer treats me very well. It's refreshing to be treated on merit and not on grade or seniority.

Mine too. The non-union jobs I've worked ALWAYS had better working conditions, and better employee-management relations. I would never work for a union shop again.

[Guest]

Sooooo true!

That's why employers are rushing overseas where they can again reap exhorbitant profits from slave wages.

Actually, it's because people won't pay what it costs to have their t shirts and shoes made in Canada at Canadian wages.

Edit> Best clarify what I mean by "People" Enough to make sure that any company that tries to compete with those who do manufacture products overseas will do very poorly, except for niche markets.

Edited May 5, 2013 by bcsapper

[Argus]

Nice try....but wrong given the number of European born immigrants in the U.S., now numbering about 5,000,000.

Give me more irrelevant data, why don't you? We're not talking about some old guy who immigrated to the US in 1954. We're talking about present day immigration. And that's about 80,000 from all of Europe vs 800,000 from Asia and South America.

[Argus]

Mine too. The non-union jobs I've worked ALWAYS had better working conditions, and better employee-management relations. I would never work for a union shop again.

You're entire world view is based on your own personal experience? Because mine is the opposite. I worked for a number of non union employers during most of my life, and most of my managers were free to change shifts at random, to punish people for presumed malfeasance, to play favorites, and to pressure people to do extra work without extra pay. Walmart, that sacred home of the perfect private sector employer all the anti-unionsts adore, has been repeatedly fined for using child labour and for requiring unpaid overtime. It fires people once a year, and makes them apply again for their jobs so they don't qualify as permanent. Anyone who doesn't show enthusiasm for management loses shifts or is dropped altogether.

By comparison, management has, by and large, been far more fair and professional at my current union employer. Oh, there are some morons in management. Don't get me wrong. But the union can and does intercede in many cases where management is treating an employee unfairly. As a shop steward I've done it myself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Give me more irrelevant data, why don't you? We're not talking about some old guy who immigrated to the US in 1954. We're talking about present day immigration. And that's about 80,000 from all of Europe vs 800,000 from Asia and South America.

The population of Europe is only about 11% of total world population. About 10% of all current U.S. immigrants were born in Europe. The math works out just fine thank-you very much. Like I said...nice try.

[Bryan]

most of my managers were free to change shifts at random, to punish people for presumed malfeasance, to play favorites, and to pressure people to do extra work without extra pay.

Sounds exactly like the managers at both of the public sector unionized jobs I've worked at.

I've never seen anything like that at a non-union job. We're all on the same team, trying to do the same job, no need for adversarial positions.

[Argus]

Unions had a place and time. But all of the important gains have been encoded into employment standard laws so there is no need for them any more. Unions are as obsolete as a manual typewriter.

Drivel. Even in government, which is supposedly that paragon of professionalism, where management doesn't need to pressure workers to make extra profits, you still find asshole managers. I've met a number of them.

In a series of public humiliations, Chotalia mocked employees, spread rumours throughout the office, blamed employees for mistakes they didn't make, spied on them, interrogated them, accused them of stealing, kept secret files on some and -- as a kicker -- refused to let them evacuate the building during an earthquake, forcing staff instead to attend her swearing-in ceremony.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/18/former-head-of-human-rights-tribunal-belitted-staff-abused-authority-says-withering-new-report/

Edited May 5, 2013 by Argus

[TimG]

Drivel. Even in government, which is supposedly that paragon of professionalism, where management doesn't need to pressure workers to make extra profits, you still find asshole managers. I've met a number of them.

Unions are not needed to deal with these issues. Most companies have HR departments that allow complaints to be made. And if complaints are not heard people can quit. In fact, if some cases they would have grounds for a lawsuit (i.e. the laws protect people - no need for a union). Edited May 5, 2013 by TimG

[Guest]

You're entire world view is based on your own personal experience?

Who else's? I've worked for both union and non union employers. I prefer the non union. I find I am treated more like an individual. I am rewarded for what I do, and I don't have to watch the clown next to me get exactly the same reward for doing half the work. I have far more flexibility with my work hours. I don't have to put up with those silly political idiosyncracies that unions often have.

It's just my experience.

[Argus]

Frankly, employment regulations that we have today are absurd because they are designed for 9-5 weekday work that does not simply exist any more. The law needs to focus on letting employees and employers work out their own arrangements that suit them.

Riiiiight. Because that's going to be a discussion between equals.

[Argus]

Unions are not needed to deal with these issues. Most companies have HR departments that allow complaints to be made. And if complaints are not heard people can quit. In fact, if some cases they would have grounds for a lawsuit (i.e. the laws protect people - no need for a union).

Riiight. Because everyone has forty or fifty thousand dollars to sue a company...

If you read the post article it clearly demonstrates that even after the union went to the top, the complaints against this nasty commissioner were ignored. Why? Because like most large organizations, when it comes to a dispute between a manager, especially a senior manager, and mere 'staff' those at the top don't consider right or wrong. They simply support their appointee.

[Canuckistani]

Country of birth Population (2000)
United States 250,314,015
Total foreign born 31,107,890
Mexico 9,177,485
Philippines 1,369,070
China 1,192,435
India 1,022,050
Vietnam 988,175
Cuba 872,715
Korea 864,125
Canada 820,770
El Salvador 817,335
Germany 706,705
Dominican Republic 687,675
United Kingdom 677,750
Jamaica 553,825
Colombia 509,870
Guatemala 480,665
Italy 473,340
Poland 466,740
Haiti 419,315
Japan 347,540
Russia 340,175
Taiwan 326,215
Ecuador 298,625
Iran 283,225
Honduras 282,850
Peru 278,185
Ukraine 275,155
Pakistan 223,475
Nicaragua 220,335
Brazil 212,430
Guyana 211,190
Laos 204,285
Portugal 203,120
Trinidad and Tobago 197,400
Thailand 169,800
Greece 165,750
Republic of Ireland 156,475
France 151,155
Cambodia 136,980
Romania 135,695
Nigeria 134,940
Argentina 125,220
Egypt 113,395
Israel 109,720
Venezuela 107,030
Lebanon 105,910
Panama 105,175
Bosnia and Herzegovina 98,756
Bangladesh 95,295
Netherlands 94,570
Hungary 92,015
Iraq 89,890
Czech Republic 83,080
Spain 82,860
Chile 80,805
Turkey 78,380
Indonesia 72,550
Costa Rica 71,870
Ethiopia 69,530
Ghana 65,570
Armenia 65,280
Austria 63,650
South Africa 63,560
Australia 60,965
Syria 54,560
Bolivia 53,280
Barbados 52,170

[bush_cheney2004]

Eastern Europeans are flocking to the USA and other nations for the same economic and political reasons that Western, Northern, and Southern Europeans did when life sucked in their Euro-paradise(s) (and did so when U.S. crime and poverty rates were much higher).

Edited May 5, 2013 by bush_cheney2004