The only people who can rightly the existence of all unions are ones who've never been employed (and perhaps never had any employed family members). Everyone else ought to thank unions and organized labor every day for benefits that are nowadays taken for granted: 40 hour work weeks, workplace safety, vacation/sick pay, benefits, the ability to air grievances about harassment (especially sexual harassment), healthcare, and others.
If their function seems anachronistic, ask your local wal-mart employees why they can't unionize or how great their jobs are. Look at where the products they sell are made, then look up labor or environmental conditions in those countries.
Unions can sometimes become corrupted, like any individual or organized body. That doesn't diminish their usefulness or legitimacy. Few people were suggesting the entire office of the President of the US be abolished simply because our last president was corrupt.
TJ - 14 years ago
@JMG - You said -- "Unions have become disgusting." What exactly is so disgusting? Are they perfect? Absolutely not. No one ever complained about Unions when things were in a boom and everyone else ran off to make their gazillions. No one was complaining about Unions when they made working conditions better for millions of people in this country. Now that it turns out that Union Workers made the right choice (slow and steady wins the race), everyone is suddenly hating on Unions. What is so wrong about protecting a living wage with reasonable benefits in return for the work we do? Would you rather everyone made .80/cents per hour, were required to work 80 hours per week with no sick leave or health care? The only way to be able to protect those benefits is to stand up and be heard in a united fashion.
@Carrie - it's times like this, when companies take take advantage of economic conditions in order to reduce the benefits and compensation for their workers - that the Union needs to stand especially strong. Cutting off a little benefit here and a little bit of health care there is a slippery slope.
Carrie - 14 years ago
It's unfortunate the union is insisting on a strike in this economy. They're arrogant to believe there aren't a million workers lining up to fill those vacant positions. That union might be the end of itself.
amber - 14 years ago
The thing people have to understand is that people don't just go on strike for any reason--they go on strike because their employer is trying to get away with drastic benefit cuts, wage cuts, things like that. So when workers are brave enough to stand up for good wages and benefits for themselves and their families, as well as for others in their industry (and if you don't think in this economy it takes guts to do that, you're crazy)--if you then undermine them by taking those jobs, then you're complicit in allowing employers in this country to continue screwing workers. It's all a slippery slope--and you have to look at the bigger picture. We have to take a stand in this country and stop the downward slide of American jobs, or we're all going to end up working for minimum wage and no benefits and wondering how we ended up here.
Elaine - 14 years ago
I crossed a picket line to work in a supermarket when I was a teenager. I was SPAT ON. I might have felt a little guilty at first, but not after that.
Eric - 14 years ago
I have a good friend who is a union carpenter that just took a non-union job. When I asked him basically this question, his answer was. "I'm number 157 on the list for a union job. If the union gets me a job, I'll take it, but I'm not sitting around and waiting."
Taking this job would be ok regardless of the economy or personal situation. An employer cannot hire a replacement worker if the original worker is working, therefore nobody is taking anybody's job away. In the case of a strike, the original workers choose not to work, then through fear and intimidation they try to eliminate competition for their jobs. If a striking worker does not like what the employer is offering, he is free to seek employment elsewhere or negotiate for a better offer. If he chooses to stop working as part of his negotiation tactic, there's no reason for the employer not to find someone who will work for what is being offered, if he feels that is the best decision.
If a candidate for a job opening at a company decided to picket outside the interview office in order to prevent other candidates from being interviewed for the job, wouldn't that seem crazy?
Randall Sewell - 14 years ago
I'm a REALLY strong supporter of unions, and the fact that the economy was ruined by a generally anti-union group makes me even more sad to have to vote yes on this. Being a scab sucks, but being homeless sucks a lot more. It's the lesser of two evils.
JMG - 14 years ago
Based on the current replies, I'd say most people are of a similar opinion as me. Unions have become disgusting.
The only people who can rightly the existence of all unions are ones who've never been employed (and perhaps never had any employed family members). Everyone else ought to thank unions and organized labor every day for benefits that are nowadays taken for granted: 40 hour work weeks, workplace safety, vacation/sick pay, benefits, the ability to air grievances about harassment (especially sexual harassment), healthcare, and others.
If their function seems anachronistic, ask your local wal-mart employees why they can't unionize or how great their jobs are. Look at where the products they sell are made, then look up labor or environmental conditions in those countries.
Unions can sometimes become corrupted, like any individual or organized body. That doesn't diminish their usefulness or legitimacy. Few people were suggesting the entire office of the President of the US be abolished simply because our last president was corrupt.
@JMG - You said -- "Unions have become disgusting." What exactly is so disgusting? Are they perfect? Absolutely not. No one ever complained about Unions when things were in a boom and everyone else ran off to make their gazillions. No one was complaining about Unions when they made working conditions better for millions of people in this country. Now that it turns out that Union Workers made the right choice (slow and steady wins the race), everyone is suddenly hating on Unions. What is so wrong about protecting a living wage with reasonable benefits in return for the work we do? Would you rather everyone made .80/cents per hour, were required to work 80 hours per week with no sick leave or health care? The only way to be able to protect those benefits is to stand up and be heard in a united fashion.
@Carrie - it's times like this, when companies take take advantage of economic conditions in order to reduce the benefits and compensation for their workers - that the Union needs to stand especially strong. Cutting off a little benefit here and a little bit of health care there is a slippery slope.
It's unfortunate the union is insisting on a strike in this economy. They're arrogant to believe there aren't a million workers lining up to fill those vacant positions. That union might be the end of itself.
The thing people have to understand is that people don't just go on strike for any reason--they go on strike because their employer is trying to get away with drastic benefit cuts, wage cuts, things like that. So when workers are brave enough to stand up for good wages and benefits for themselves and their families, as well as for others in their industry (and if you don't think in this economy it takes guts to do that, you're crazy)--if you then undermine them by taking those jobs, then you're complicit in allowing employers in this country to continue screwing workers. It's all a slippery slope--and you have to look at the bigger picture. We have to take a stand in this country and stop the downward slide of American jobs, or we're all going to end up working for minimum wage and no benefits and wondering how we ended up here.
I crossed a picket line to work in a supermarket when I was a teenager. I was SPAT ON. I might have felt a little guilty at first, but not after that.
I have a good friend who is a union carpenter that just took a non-union job. When I asked him basically this question, his answer was. "I'm number 157 on the list for a union job. If the union gets me a job, I'll take it, but I'm not sitting around and waiting."
Taking this job would be ok regardless of the economy or personal situation. An employer cannot hire a replacement worker if the original worker is working, therefore nobody is taking anybody's job away. In the case of a strike, the original workers choose not to work, then through fear and intimidation they try to eliminate competition for their jobs. If a striking worker does not like what the employer is offering, he is free to seek employment elsewhere or negotiate for a better offer. If he chooses to stop working as part of his negotiation tactic, there's no reason for the employer not to find someone who will work for what is being offered, if he feels that is the best decision.
If a candidate for a job opening at a company decided to picket outside the interview office in order to prevent other candidates from being interviewed for the job, wouldn't that seem crazy?
I'm a REALLY strong supporter of unions, and the fact that the economy was ruined by a generally anti-union group makes me even more sad to have to vote yes on this. Being a scab sucks, but being homeless sucks a lot more. It's the lesser of two evils.
Based on the current replies, I'd say most people are of a similar opinion as me. Unions have become disgusting.