Not a trick question, just looking for a direct answer on being against Unions.
companies wants to keep me, they will pay to keep me. I think unions had a purpose decades ago due to employee safety issues, not so much anymore. I will also add, my job isn't a factory line, do this with a widget all day every day, kind of job. Those jobs, where there isn't a good way to differentiate high-performing employees, they may make sense... I agree with Jakers though, at this point, I think they add unnecessary costs to the production cost.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best devised system yet for class mobility. If you have talent, a union is definitely detrimental to your career. There is a trend in the software industry towards (to borrow from Monty Python) autonomous collectives. It'll be interesting to see how this works.
In companies I've worked for, union facilities have far higher fixed conversion costs that weigh down profit growth. They also make it extremely hard to be cost-competitive or price leaders in the market, because they oppose and sabotage investment in capital that improves speed and efficiency, which would reduce unit costs.
Additionally, they make retention of your best and brightest tough by forcing promotions and growth opportunities to follow seniority over performance.
They lose to non-union facilities and companies constantly.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
And reparations.
Sounds like you should vote GOP, but are just too stupid to know it.
These drive productivity into the ground and chase employers to non-Union states. Otherwise I feel they are very beneficial... except for pubic employee unions, which are extremely corrupting of the political pricess.
Why are most Dems pro Union (the organization) and not pro-Union-laborers? Power and money, of course.
I personally think the Unions don't look after the interests of their members anymore. They want members for dues, not to help the members. Union leadership abandoned the membership, and that is part of the reason we have Trump.
The main problem we currently have is jobs that really need unions (i.e., Walmart and Amazon employees) don't have them, but public sector jobs do (which are paid by taxpayers, not greedy corporations). As a result unions are getting a bad rap, not entirely undeserved.
For full disclosure, I have a public sector job. Union membership is optional. Currently, I view it as not worth the dues. That could change in the future.
....and unions are a disadvantage to workers in the setting of a beneficent business owner, but the unions assume the worst of owners on every occasion.
In a post Lochner world, there really isn’t a need for unions to protect the basic health and safety of workers. With Lochner being effectively overturned in the late 1930’s, Unions are no longer needed in the U.S. There are now plenty of federal and state laws protecting workers (OSHA, FLSA, Title VII, ADEA, ERISA, ADA, etc.)
There is a long history of Union corruption in the U.S. Even those that are not overtly corrupt tend towards a level of bureaucracy in which the value of dues paid by members is less than what they get in return. There are always a few people at the top of union management which tend to get rich at the expense of the workers. Trade Unions have also proved fairly ineffective in managing pension funds.
In the U.S. (and even more so abroad in Europe), they tend be a drag on the economy.
Violence. There is a history of violence by unions in the U.S. This hit close to home for me as my grandfather was murdered due to his role in a union organizing campaign in the 1930s in Mishawaka.
Flexibility—In industries which require rapid innovation, unions can slow this down.
Meritocracy—Unions tend to value tenure over merit. I just prefer a system where the best performers are rewarded. This is particularly problematic in environments like public education.
I think unions had a place in the U.S. economy during the 1800’s, but much has changed since then.
I do support the unionization requirements of the USMCA. In summary it requires Mexico to implement unions in a manner closer to way they exist in the U.S. This will bring some long overdue protections to Mexican workers. (It will also in the long run be a step in closing the gap between the U.S. and Mexico in labor costs.)
(no message)
Unions started out well intentioned but quickly became just another racket. On the whole they have helped workers, almost as much as they've helped themselves. They're sort of like Tariffs and a better society wouldn't need them.
So you are obligated to put your child in a failing school. And you are a teacher at that school that goes the extra mile for your students while other teachers phone it in. Why should they both be paid the same? Why not reward teachers with merit pay that have their students at the top? The teacher unions won’t let that happen. Who loses, the students. Give parents a choice.