LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Another complaint of mine is about unions and the unnatural power they have attained.

In many industries, schools, manufacturing, stores, etc. it often becomes necessary due to owners, or bosses excesses, that employees feel the need to organize and work with the bosses as a unit instead of individually. Individually, little to no power. Collectively, more power.

When a work force feels the need to unionize, they v**e for it. Fine. Now here is where I have a problem.

One: we go from the employers having unnatural and unfair advantage and power over the individual;
Two: To a union that might be strictly within that entity, a school, a supermarket, a manufacturing plant, etc and more of a one on one conversation where the health of the business is balanced off against the interests of the owners and the interests of the employees.
Three: Or the situation of when a national union takes over and with their might, start to run the business into the ground, and ultimately destroying the very jobs they were there to protect and maximize.

To my way of thinking, number One is the best option, with a benevolent owner, and probably a small business, but even larger organizations can work better when there is earned respect going both ways.
But otherwise, we need number two, were the employees and employers act as equal entities and not only respect the needs for decent wages as opposed to decent profits for the owners.
The number three choice is the worst choice possible. It becomes a greedy union raising costs so high that the owners have to raise costs so high that the company goes under or moves its operations overseas. And the national union doesn't give a s**te, because they have other customers (other unions within their fold) to milk for higher wages for the union bosses and higher political contributions for their politicians of choice whether you like it or not, and eventually drive your company out of business.

I've watched businesses move to Mexico or China in order to stay in business and won't loose their entire investment, while the unions demand more and more and won't back off as in a fair negotiation between two equals. Because it is a national union. The same with school boards, trying to fight a bunch of screaming teachers on strike yelling they are doing it for the kids when it always carries a healthy raise for themselves with less work, shorter hours more holidays and on and on. It never was and never will be for the kids. The union represents the teachers and not the kids, and is supported from a national union, and payoffs to local politicians. I could go On and On.

What are your opinions?

Logically Right

Gatsby

Last month, I needed a new radiator in my Jeep, I got three estimates for the job.

Highest: Union staffed Auto Repair shop, $735.00;

Lowest: Second generation family owned & operated radiator shop, $210.00

Enough said!

American Vet

>>>>we go from the employers having unnatural and unfair advantage and power over the individual

Sorry, I disagree.

There is nothing unnatural and/or unfair about the way the owner of a business chooses to operate the business. We have laws in place protecting everyone from discrimination and unsafe/harmful actions (EEOC and OSHA).

If one feels they are being treated unfairly (low pay, etc.), then move on to something better.

Freedom - it's all about choice.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

AV. I don't think we are all that far off.

I am not defending the forming of unions as such. My father owned a main manufacturing facility and his employees always v**ed down unions at every attempt. He treated everyone with respect. As long as respect goes both ways, we have a better chance of a company succeeding. When energy goes towards supporting a union instead of the company, and the owners are selfish in the name of profits, etc. and don't consider the health and safety and income of employees, energy is spent in not making the business a success. That hurts both sides.

Sometimes, unions are formed for wh**ever reason. The point of discussion that I was aiming for was against national unions battling smaller businesses with national muscle and reversing the original situation where the business owner is the more powerful and the employee subservient. We have all to often reversed the dynamics and then the company suffers as it faces unreasonable costs, rules and other issues that hurt the viability of the company and its purpose. The company starts with an owner or set of investors putting in excessive amounts of work and money to establish a business, for the purposes of making a reasonable profit on their investment of time and capital. It does not start to provide jobs. National unions destroy what should be a reasonable exercise in unions and owners working to keep a viable, profitable company going, so that the owners get a reasonable return on their investment and the employees get a reasonable return for their work and investment in time with that company.

One of the reasons for this posting was watching the Chicago Teachers Union and their unfair tactics. We have the normal public school system and private schools and now charter schools. CTU forces through rules that will limit the expansion of school choice through charter schools, which are essentially public supported and often doing a better job then the standard school. But the CTU then goes into the Charter schools and unionizes them, under the same CTU that is strangling our children already, All about using children to seek better wages, lower hours, more holidays, and only using the kids as excuses for more excesses. And now they are after controlling the Charter schools that were set off as a balance against their excesses and a better opportunity for the children. And they are affiliated with national muscle backing them. And our children loose.

Logically Right

American Vet