Home › Forums › Open Discussion › What Besides Unions?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 27, 2011 at 7:14 pm #598116
dobroParticipantA brief question, mostly aimed at those who dislike or are philosophically opposed to trade and labor unions- what other institution exists in American society that protects workers rights and could possibly defend and save the middle class in this country? the key point-what institution–I’m talking about some established entity. Is there one?
February 27, 2011 at 7:21 pm #718717
kmweinerMemberNope, nothing. Without them we will be sitting ducks as in the 20’s. Watch for sweat shops, underage employment and gender and racial discrimination. WI is only the beginning as the “phony” phone call proves. These guys are out for blood. It is so ironic to me that the rich greedy b…..s caused all the trouble and are now trying to get people to believe it is the middle class that is the problem. Know what? Some people believe them UGH
February 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm #718718
dawsonctParticipantHope for a benevolent monarch?
February 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm #718719
snaParticipantAre you serious? Theres a bunch of government agencies that protect workers. OSHA, the EEOC, state labor departments. There’s also thousands of laws to protect workers rights.
You realize that 90% of the workforce is non union, right?
February 27, 2011 at 9:24 pm #718720
kmweinerMemberSure, that percent benefits by the work of those in the union. Remember they brought you the weekend. :-)
As for the agencies you mention, they do very little enforcement and don’t have much to do with the issues for which unions bargain.
February 27, 2011 at 9:40 pm #718721
dobroParticipantsna, so all the things you mentioned are operated by the government. unions aren’t. Can those agencies still protect workers when forces hostile to workers take over the government? (see Wisconsin).
February 27, 2011 at 9:45 pm #718722
snaParticipantDobro, you mean democracy? The leaders in Wisconsin were elected by the people and were very upfront on their views.
February 27, 2011 at 9:57 pm #718723
dobroParticipantI think there is great debate on how upfront they were. But, that aside, my question remains- is there an institution besides unions that protect workers rights? The government agencies are subject to the changes in control as to how much they’re willing to protect the middle class.
February 27, 2011 at 10:43 pm #718724
YardvarkMemberConsumers. Taxpayers.
February 27, 2011 at 11:13 pm #718725
dobroParticipantIn what way
A)are consumers and taxpayers an institution
B)how do they protect workers rights–and BTW, union workers are taxpayers and consumers.
February 27, 2011 at 11:24 pm #718726
snaParticipantWhich “rights” are you referring to?
February 28, 2011 at 12:03 am #718727
DPMembersna, I expect dobro is referring to those rights pertaining to pay and working conditions, as opposed to basic workplace safety issues. But I don’t want to speak for him . . .
You are right, sna, that there are agencies that are charged, by law, with maintaining workplace safety, preventing child labor, discrimination, etc., but these have nothing to do with the question of whether workers are paid a liveable wage. For that, I think history shows, you need a union.
In any case, I’m stumped by the Wisconsin governor’s actions. Supposing (just supposing) that Wisconsin government workers are not sacrificing their fair share in order to balance the budget. Why doesn’t the governor just ask to renegotiate the contract? Why is he trying to eliminate collective bargaining all together? That seems like a dirty rotten trick to me. Plus, it doesn’t even make sense from a business or efficiency point of view. If I hire someone to work for me on a long-term basis, I consider a contract as much a protection for me as it is for the person doing the work.
Would you hire someone to put a roof on your house without a contract?
February 28, 2011 at 1:22 am #718728
elikapekaParticipantThere isn’t one. As union membership has declined, so has the U.S. standard of living. Areas of the country with low union membership have historically had lower standards of living (the South). Unions have long set the standard for wages, benefits and working conditions in progressive societies.
I used to work in the airline industry before and during the beginning of deregulation. I started with a unionized company and ended up with a nonunion company. At the time we were bought out, the nonunion employees made more money but we had better benefits and far superior work rules. In order to keep the union from organizing the new company, our wages were quickly brought up to match the new employer. It worked, unfortunately. They always kept the benefits and pay pretty close to those of the unionized carriers to keep the unions out. But over time, as union membership declined, so have the wages and benefits. What was once a great career is now a low-wage, low-benefit service job. Glad I got out when I did.
Sna, as far as I have been able to determine, Walker did not campaign on eliminating unions. He campaigned on lowering costs. There’s a big difference. As to government agencies protecting the rights of workers, I see them as the floor beyond which standards cannot go. Employees need an avenue to address working conditions, wages and benefits. A union is the only way to do it. These agencies wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for activism from workers, that’s true, but the agencies are too easily politically influenced by whoever happens to be in office, or they can be de-funded.
Yardvark, I’m not sure what you mean by consumers and taxpayers. If you mean consumers and taxpayers will bring about social pressure for a good workplace, I would have to disagree with you. It sometimes works, as with Cesar Chavez and the grape boycott of the ’70s, but I think society is too fractured and there are too many product sources now for that to be an effective strategy.
Collective bargaining rights have been hard won over many years. What Walker is doing is just plain wrong. Without some mechanism to even the playing field, the middle class as we know it today will cease to exist.
February 28, 2011 at 2:26 am #718729
kmweinerMemberSo sad and so true.
February 28, 2011 at 2:34 am #718730
JoBParticipantsna…
as it turns out… those entrusted with the safety of the people in Wisconsin.. the police union.. who backed Governor walker in his recent election.. are now occupying the Statehouse along with the protesters.
It appears that the people of Wisconsin may have agreed with the economic concessions that the governor already got from the public employees union…
but not with the idea that the governor deny public employees the right enjoyed by other workers.
February 28, 2011 at 4:32 am #718731
redblackParticipantthe funny – and sad – thing is that the republicans in wisconsin are proving exactly why unions are necessary, and are, in fact, strengthening the need for unions’ existence.
go seek your budget cuts elsewhere, you teabaggers. maybe hit up some of your rich campaign donors for the taxes they’ve been dodging for 30 years.
February 28, 2011 at 4:57 am #718732
snaParticipantThe majority of the state’s budget goes to pay and benefits, so that makes it hard to look elsewhere.
But we did take away health care from a bunch of poor kids. That will help ensure the state workers dont have to pay anything for theirs.
February 28, 2011 at 5:27 am #718733
JoBParticipantsna..
and i am betting you are one of those proud people who were willing to give up property tax relief because if you ever won the lottery you didn’t want to pay state income tax on it….
we didn’t need to take health care away from poor kids … the majority of us chose to :(
February 28, 2011 at 5:29 am #718734
jamminjMemberas an aside… just don’t understand the mentality to want to weaken workers, whether its 10% or 75% of the workforce. The only argument presented so far, is that the unions are only 10% of the workforce so they should suffer like everyone else. Seems as if ALL workers want the same power as good unions have… why diminish yourself to have less power as a worker????
why the want / need to lower wages for the middle class?? Those who battle unions, you do realize that the middle class is diminishing, don’t you… and corporations are making record profits… and you want to attack a police officer for his ability to fight for a fair wage??? really?? thats YOUR fight??
Instead of asking those who have the power of a union, to give up their benefits… you should ask yourself… why are you not working to better YOUR workforce.
February 28, 2011 at 5:38 am #718735
redblackParticipantThe majority of the state’s budget goes to pay and benefits, so that makes it hard to look elsewhere.
false.
in the FY 2007-09, 23.7% of the state’s budget was for salaries and benefits.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/Documents/Publications/BudgetGuides/2009/CGTB09.pdf
but you’re right. the governor has already cut DSHS to the bone.
maybe we should look at corporate entitlements. or raise some new revenue streams on the backs of the top 2%, who are doing remarkably well.
February 28, 2011 at 5:43 am #718736
JoBParticipantredblack..
why when it is so much fun to squeeze blood from a stone?
*** warning : excessive irony has been known to cause intellectual breakdown in those whose only source of news is FAUX.
February 28, 2011 at 5:52 am #718737
snaParticipantJamminj, great question.
I have no problem with private unions, but public unions are another matter. With private unions, workers and management negotiate over distribution of profits and the unions know if they get too much, the comany goes out of business.
With public unions (which have only been legal since the 1960s) you have unions fighting over their share of the tax dollars. And politicians have found it much easier to ask for tax increases than negotiate tough contracts with the public unions which are often the key supporters to their re-election.
With private unions you have two strong forces (union vs management). Public unions have no strong force countering their power.
So now many states with public unions are in a mess because they cant afford the contracts and pensions signed in the good times. And we’re left with a really simple choice: Do we take away services from the most vulnerable or do we ask publc unions to accept market rates for wages and benefits.
February 28, 2011 at 5:59 am #718738
jamminjMember“Do we take away services from the most vulnerable or do we ask publc unions to accept market rates for wages and benefits. “
why is it that the working class, public or private, has to make the sacrifice. It is time that we ask those who are making the top tier profits and salaries to make their sacrifice.
again, trying to lower the middle class while not mentioning the top level income earners.
February 28, 2011 at 6:01 am #718739
redblackParticipantsna: why do you look at a job as some kind of entitlement? something like 10% of the country works for government in some fashion.
unions aren’t just holding the door open so a bunch of socialists can come running in to grab freebies, and the notion is pretty damned insulting.
unions for the public sector exist to prevent exactly the kind of b.s. that scott walker is pulling in wisconsin. they largely ensure that wages and benefits are equal across all sectors.
when the economy is fat, no one notices that government employees make about 10% less than the private sector. but when the banksters squeeze the economy dry and unemployment rises, suddenly it’s belt-tightening time at the expense of government.
that whole model is stupid.
and i find it pretty funny that people with a libertarian bent are suddenly cheering on the government in wisconsin.
February 28, 2011 at 6:01 am #718740
snaParticipantJamminj, more taxes have been voted on and soundly rejected over and over. We have to deal with the reality of the situation. More taxes arent gonna happen.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.