Discussion: All Things Union

[SV Fan]

I love how the forces came out to defend the union bosses. Down with the 1%!

I am not defending union bosses, I am just pointing out you are creating a strawman and not talking about the actual point I made(ie the percentage of money going to the 1% doubling over the last 40 years).

6 people making over half a million dollars I think is the least of the issues in regards to that(even if I do agree with you I think the guys you listed are slightly overpaid). As I said it's not even a 1% problem, it's a problem that big companies are doing everything to squeeze out every penny to the employees whether it be lowering salaries or firing people then CEO and shareholders basically reep the profits out of screwing over the little man. If a doctor, lawyer or even a Union boss make enough to be considered 1% more power to them.

 

[dnno1]

haha I am messed up? HAHAHA. You agree that a union boss should stand at the door and take away money from each person's pay check whether they like the union or not (figuratively speaking but it's the same thing...you can be denied the job or fired if you refuse). Noice. And, over here is messed up me who thinks that people should be able to choose whether or not they want to pay dues or not. God forbid the union that you are FORCED to pay dues to supports causes or politicians that you don't agree with. You have your side where you get no say in the matter or you have my messed up bizarro side where you can choose to pay or not. Then again your perspective is what the left builds their idols upon...

Michigan did not take away collective bargaining rights. Quit watching MSNBC.

If that is what is in their contract, then that's the way it is, but I think the president of a union standing at the door collecting money is kind of an exaggeration. Furthermore, if a person knew going in that he would have to pay monthly fees for being represented by a union and he/she was against it, he/she had the opportunity to not accept any offer for that job in the first place and thus is not being forced to do anything, but rather he/she got into a (different) contract and must pay for the services rendered. That is the time that person had the chance to choose not to pay. Additionally, there have been court cases (like Communications Workers v. Beck) that have upheld the fact that a person can be compelled to pay fees to cover collective bargaining services. I think this is only fair.

 

[dnno1]

Or I got a better idea, if you're not a part of a union, you don't get union benefits! It's not fair that if you don't pay dues and aren't a part of the organization that they take care of you. Union membership and paying fees should be a choice, not an obligation.

And if you think those dues aren't going to political and organizing activities, you're naive. Unions have a long history of corruption and violating the law.

Not a good idea. The Taft-Hartley Act requires the union to cover everybody even though they are not a member of the union.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Taft-Hartley is a terrible law to begin with.

 

[dnno1]

Taft-Hartley is a terrible law to begin with.

That's your opinion. The fact of the matter is that it is the law of the land for nearly 70 years, and it in essence is "Right to Work" These states who are enacting their own "Right to Work" laws are really attempting to take away the union's ability to raise revenue and to donate to political campaigns. This not only is contrary to Taft-Hartley, but is also an indirect way of getting around Citizens United. People and organizations should be compensated for their services, and any attempt to prevent them from exercising their First Amendment right should not be tolerated.

 

[Kelly]

That's your opinion. The fact of the matter is that it is the law of the land for nearly 70 years, and it in essence is "Right to Work" These states who are enacting their own "Right to Work" laws are really attempting to take away the union's ability to raise revenue and to donate to political campaigns. This not only is contrary to Taft-Hartley, but is also an indirect way of getting around Citizens United. People and organizations should be compensated for their services, and any attempt to prevent them from exercising their First Amendment right should not be tolerated.

Well, why should I have to give to a union that is going to give money to a specific campaign that I don't agree with....

The teacher organization I belong to only supports those things that are about education (and that is after they have asked us to vote on the issues), they do not support or give money to specific campaigns. That is why I CHOSE that particular organization and not the other 15 or so that I could have chosen. They don't speak out on specific politicians, they speak out about those things that are specific to education.

 

[SV Fan]

Well, why should I have to give to a union that is going to give money to a specific campaign that I don't agree with....

Why should somebody who is in a union job get all the benefits the union negotiated for(plus the salary they negotiated for) if they aren't paying the union dues?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Why should somebody who is in a union job get all the benefits the union negotiated for(plus the salary they negotiated for) if they aren't paying the union dues?

And they shouldn't. Just like how a person shouldn't be forced to join a union or pay for a union, a union shouldn't be forced to provide what it offers to those who don't want it.

 

[Kelly]

Why should somebody who is in a union job get all the benefits the union negotiated for(plus the salary they negotiated for) if they aren't paying the union dues?

Here is the thing SV, I have no problem with the negotiating, as long as it is not so ridiculous that the person WHO IS NOT FREAKING WORKING IS GETTING AS MUCH in retirement as they were when they were working, that is moronic....

And what I'm talking about is about a political choice, I do not think that dues should go to any particular candidate....THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. Which is what I said specifically...

 

[bkong0]

Are people in this thread making a serious issue of less than a dozen people barely making it into the top 1% on their union boss salaries?

The average CEO in a S&P 500 company in America makes 380x what the average worker does at their company. The total direct median compensation for a CEO in America (out of 250~ public companies that offered such numbers) was $10.3 million. As in, any single CEO at a decent sized company is making more than all the union bosses, combined.

Are some union bosses overpaid? Sure. Reduce their salaries. Is every single CEO in America overpaid by a grossly exaggerated amount that exceeds the salaries of all those union bosses combined? Yep.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577490842584787190.html

Though I suppose it's similar to how people rag on unions all the time when they're almost politically irrelevant and have the least power they've had in 50+ years while corporations hold record amounts of cash and fund endless right-to-work legislation.

 

[chaseter]

I love how people try and brush a turd under the rug and then make a big deal about the other turd still out on the carpet.

It's okay for union bosses to be in the 1%...because they are for the people amirite? Lets take our pitchforks to a CEO of a company that we have nothing to do with while being lead by someone who probably makes about what that CEO makes. It's the 1% leading the 99% against the 1%. Wait what?

 

[Fading]

Since unions are back in the news, I thought I'd subscribe to keep updated on you guy's thoughts.

Unions are a mixed bag for me. On one hand, the rich have several ppl lobbying, and actively protecting them in Washington. Helping the middle class, and the poor keep their heads above water on the other hand always seems to be a huge, tough fight. Salaries are stagnant, and I do believe it's important for the average citizen to be able to have a voice. I also believe historically unions have done good.

However, modern unions seem to be causing as much trouble as they solve. They get greedy, stubborn, and become obstructionists who cause factories to close over minor issues.

I don't think unions should be done away with, and ppl's right to join one banned. However, I also don't think unions in their current state are helping either. I'm not sure where the middle ground is, but I do know I don't necessarily think either side of this issue has it right atm. The aggressive way Republicans are attacking unions doesn't sit well with me, but neither does the line of thought that unions are fine as is, and should remain untouched.

 

[chaseter]

Salaries are stagnant because we are in a 4 year recession that looks to be a 6-8 year recession.

Private unions are fine as long as they can't be a bully like they were in Michigan...forcing people to pay or not get hired. A private union can bring down a private company, that's fine. But there should be zero public sector unions. Public employee unions are nothing but a drain. Unions shouldn't ever be prohibited in the private sector. That's a choice as a worker, company, and consumer. We don't get that choice as a consumer to the government and they can just raise taxes to accord are the costs.

Unions are the left's last totem of power because they feed into their political machine.

 

[SV Fan]

Salaries are stagnant because we are in a 4 year recession that looks to be a 6-8 year recession.

That's a good excuse for the past 4 years, what about the previous 25-30 before that though?

 

[dnno1]

Salaries are stagnant because we are in a 4 year recession that looks to be a 6-8 year recession.

Private unions are fine as long as they can't be a bully like they were in Michigan...forcing people to pay or not get hired. A private union can bring down a private company, that's fine. But there should be zero public sector unions. Public employee unions are nothing but a drain. Unions shouldn't ever be prohibited in the private sector. That's a choice as a worker, company, and consumer. We don't get that choice as a consumer to the government and they can just raise taxes to accord are the costs.

Unions are the left's last totem of power because they feed into their political machine.

That's strange. I've been getting raises...

 

[dnno1]

Well, why should I have to give to a union that is going to give money to a specific campaign that I don't agree with....

The teacher organization I belong to only supports those things that are about education (and that is after they have asked us to vote on the issues), they do not support or give money to specific campaigns. That is why I CHOSE that particular organization and not the other 15 or so that I could have chosen. They don't speak out on specific politicians, they speak out about those things that are specific to education.

Because Taft-Hartley says you only have to pay for collective bargaining services. Campaign donations are voluntary.

 

[Kelly]

That is BS dnno1 and you know it, you know damn good and well that a portion of those dues goes to things OTHER THAN collective bargaining services, they go to lobby groups and a whole host of other stuff.

 

[dnno1]

That is BS dnno1 and you know it, you know damn good and well that a portion of those dues goes to things OTHER THAN collective bargaining services, they go to lobby groups and a whole host of other stuff.

The law says that non-union members are only obligated to pay those fees that are related to collective bargaining activities. That's not BS, that's the law. If they took that money and spent it on political campaigns, I am sure they would be short on their finances. It the money that is voluntarily contributed to political campaigns by members that go towards those efforts.

 

[Kelly]

The law says that non-union members are only obligated to pay those fees that are related to collective bargaining activities. That's not BS, that's the law. If they took that money and spent it on political campaigns, I am sure they would be short on their finances. It the money that is voluntarily contributed to political campaigns by members that go towards those efforts.

Then you missed my earlier point....

My point was not about those that choose not to be in a union. My point was for those unions where in order to work in that state, such as some teacher's unions, you HAVE to join the union to work there. Those people may be of another political ideology and not wish for their dues to go to certain, or in my case, I would not want it to go to any particular political affiliation. YET, they have no say in that.....that was my point.

 

[dnno1]

Then you missed my earlier point....

My point was not about those that choose not to be in a union. My point was for those unions where in order to work in that state, such as some teacher's unions, you HAVE to join the union to work there. Those people may be of another political ideology and not wish for their dues to go to certain, or in my case, I would not want it to go to any particular political affiliation. YET, they have no say in that.....that was my point.

Taft-Hartley already says that you don't have to join. I don't know if what you are saying is really true.

 

[Kelly]

Taft-Hartley already says that you don't have to join. I don't know if what you are saying is really true.

In many states, you want a teaching job, you have to join a Union. There are many ways of getting around that...if you are not willing to join a union, they aren't willing to hire you. It happens all the time....the unions wield far too much power in many industries, and institutions....teaching is just one of them.

As we all know....JUST BECAUSE a law states something, does it make it so....we see laws daily that are not followed....

 

[chaseter]

That's strange. I've been getting raises...

Good for you...that totally makes up for the over 10% unemployment we still have under Obama.

 

[chaseter]

That's a good excuse for the past 4 years, what about the previous 25-30 before that though?

I would say the big boom in manufacturing during the 40s/50s had a lot to do with regularly increasing wages. That's gone.

The median income for men and women in the workforce has slowly increased. It of course dips with every recession but current median income for men and women was at an all time high before the 2008 recession. Men's median income is falling as more women enter the workforce, women's is of course rising. The only politically BS graphs I ever see in here have to do with income are the share of income graphs. The left love to trot that one around while it never shows median income...it only shows percentage of the total wealth. What Warren Buffet makes has nothing to do with how much I make.

 

[dnno1]

Good for you...that totally makes up for the over 10% unemployment we still have under Obama.

Unemployment is at 7.7% last I checked.

 

[chaseter]

And you think what that is 100% correct?