Happy to hear workers are standing up for themselves. The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages over the past 50 years (check out Thomas Piketty's work if you're curious about this).
> The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages It's way more complicated than that, and it can't simply be dismissed as a "FUD campaign". Union members are actually disproportionately likely to support things like right-to-work laws, which unions dislike because it (more or less) means workers aren't obligated to be members if they choose not to. Similarly,…
>Union members are actually disproportionately likely to support things like right-to-work laws
Now that's something I haven't heard about in the US for a few decades: strikes. I'm partly kidding, but have there been any major strikes in the US lately?
This happens way more in the south of europe than in the north, where unions realize that competitiveness trumps wages.
It happens in France all the time, mostly in the public sector.
What exactly is "my attitude" please? And good on you, others will either agree or disagree with you. But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? And with whom would you...organize to stop union efforts?
The attitude of social contracts and not caring about people's free choice to not join unions. And thinking "oh, don't like unions, tough luck, go find another job or move to another country". > But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? But they ARE allowed to force me to join, under threat of being fired, in some states. So that's why. If the US h…
So you want to protect your free choice...by taking way the free choice of others to organize? For fear of something which does not happen because there is already a law against it?
>You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.
>This pattern isn't as simple to dismiss as "anti-union FUD", especially since it's seen among people who are already union members in closed shops. You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the point? If I'm a less-educated union member who has no concept of what life was like before unions, and constantly hea…
> You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the point? If I'm a less-educated union member who has no concept of what life was like before unions, and constantly hear that unions just take my money while providing no benefit, I'm probably likely to be swayed. What's the union going to do? Tell me about how 50 y…
Democracy is fine and well (caveats apply etc.) but the crux of the OPs comment is the "50 years of anti-union FUD". Maybe union workers indeed have a different set of values and priorities, which prefers the weakening/dismantling of unionized labor. Or maybe they were swayed by decades of a propaganda war waged by american corporations against unions, organized labor or anything that could be somehow be viewed as anti-corporatist.
I think discounting that possibility entirely is also a bit dangerous and possibly even simplistic/naive.
>This pattern isn't as simple to dismiss as "anti-union FUD", especially since it's seen among people who are already union members in closed shops. You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the point? If I'm a less-educated union member who has no concept of what life was like before unions, and constantly hea…
> You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the point? If I'm a less-educated union member who has no concept of what life was like before unions, and constantly hear that unions just take my money while providing no benefit, I'm probably likely to be swayed. What's the union going to do? Tell me about how 50 y…
>I'm not going to say that democracy is infallible - in fact, I'm usually the first to point out the exact opposite. But "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a pretty dangerous line of reasoning to start heading down.
I guess it's a good thing I never said any of the words you both put in my mouth and "quoted". Not once did I say I know what's best for them. Not once did I say they couldn't make decisions for themselves. What I DID say is that it's ridiculous to pretend that propaganda doesn't affect people IN unions. Which is EXACTLY what you implied.
Nobody's forcing you to work for a union shop. Find a place that isn't unionized if you don't want to be part of a union.
Instead of doing that I am just going to oppose all unions everywhere and try and prevent them from getting any power at all. Why? Because as soon as they get a foothold, it is done. Over. Can't get rid of them. There are literally rules where they can fire you for trying to end the union. If it weren't for attitudes like yours, I wouldn't be opposing unions. But your attitude DOES exist, so my only option is all out…
Posting this here, because I realize this poster is literally spreading FUD: you can not be fired for not joining a union in a unionized shop:
>You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.
Erosion of Middle Class "may" have started long before, but it rapidly took off after 2008. ( There are Middle Class / Level wages, but those wages dont put them in Middle Class anymore )* The way I see it, is either Government protect their Workers and working class with benefits and wages, Like what many parts of Europe have done or they allow Union to do it. And i know this is considered an extremely unpopular opi…
Well, companies will just use more robots, fire more workets. Robots don't get unionized, they don't need health insurance or the gov't to step and protect them. European economy is slow compared to the US due to high taxes, too much social protection and needless state meddling in the economy. If they introduce a tax on robots it will only get worse.
And then no one will have jobs and be able to buy any of the goods produced by robots.
Portugal has the same rule (and before you couldn't have them at all except in two periods in the year defined by law). The reasoning is to protect small shops from large retailers, by preventing them from forcing unplanned price wars. Similarly, for many years the very large retailers couldn't open on Sunday afternoons, although that restriction mostly benefited the large chains of medium-sized shops, since it was b…
So basically some anti competitive bullshit that is further hampering the already struggling French economy. I am so thankful that I live in the us.
Because American retailers fare so much better these days and it's clearly powering the US economy[0]. Because preventing small retailer from being starved by big chains is what's sinking the french economy. Because clearly I can tell from your comment that you spent a lot of time investigating these regulations and their impact on the french economy.
Well if a company cannot compete because wages are too high then the company goes under and jobs are gone. Germany is a good example of this, they have a ton of unions and lots of production but the unions understand that competition is key to survival so there are very few strikes.
Germany has a modern welfare system. When demand goes down, salaries go down. So the state welfare system makes up the difference. German unions also have a seat at the board. Unlike most board run companies a decision isn't made without input from the union. So yes, there few strikes in Germany because labor and management actually behave like adults.
I wonder where the money for the difference comes from? Taxes. Also German economy is pretty solid since they're a net exporter at the expense of the rest of the EU. This modern welfare system wouldn't work in France, let alone Southern Europe.
>This pattern isn't as simple to dismiss as "anti-union FUD", especially since it's seen among people who are already union members in closed shops. You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the point? If I'm a less-educated union member who has no concept of what life was like before unions, and constantly hea…
>For the average joe who just wants to go to work and get a paycheck, the bigger picture is often lost. Isn't it possible the armchair talking heads like us are the ones missing the bigger picture and the actual workers are the ones who actually get it? Let's consider the Boeing workers in South Carolina: - 2009-09 74% of employees vote against the union and decertify it[1] - 2009-10 Boeing breaks ground on new South…
Yes, but nothing in this speaks to the value of unions. It speaks volumes to the US legal climate allowing massive corporations to subtly coarse employees to vote against their economic interests. Basically what you're describing is "If you'll ask for more rights or better compensation, we'll close down this factory and move it somewhere where people will just say Thank You and shut the hell up". I think that phrase is overused, but this is one of the most obvious examples of Race to the Bottom ever.