Thoughts about unions
February 23, 2011
Posted by on
- I’ve admitted to not being a fan of unions. The main reason for this is that I feel a job is an agreement between an employer and an employee. The employer agrees to provide agreed-upon wages and perks in return for the employee doing a job. Either side can terminate this agreement at any time. Introducing a union into the mix adds an extra layer into the agreement, typically in favor of the employee. Now, the employee can leave at any time, leaving the employer to have to fill the spot. Meanwhile, the employer now has to go through red tape and hurdles to fire an employee.
- Forced unionization is just flat out wrong. In a forced unionization state, a non-unionized worker who goes to work at a unionized establishment MUST pay union dues whether they get involved with the union or not. One of the reasons unions are protesting in Indiana (and why their Democrats have fled) is because a new law up for vote by legislators would bar non-union employees from having to do this in a union shop. This idea is being described as “an attack on workers.” Isn’t forcing them to unionize an “attack on workers?”
- I mentioned this in a discussion the other day. Why is it no one on the supporting side of the unions can admit that maybe–just maybe–in some cases unions have too much power? And that losing some things isn’t a total loss?
- In any other situation, wouldn’t the idea that a group could take money, use that money to help elect people on the side of their cause, then go negotiate with these same people in order to get as much as possible for the group a conflict of interest? Just wondering, since most complains are about conservatives attempting to “bust up” unions but one rarely hears complaints about Democrats giving more power to unions.
My last thought is a quote. I found this comment online in response to a news article (“Right to Work Bill Puts Republicans, Democrats At Odds”) and it was one of the most sane, concise comments I’ve seen in the entire pro-union/anti-union debate:
All of these negatives that are presumed to happen to union workers if this bill passes are the issues the rest of us face already. All of us that do not have benefit of a union can be fired for no reason or replaced by someone just because they will do our job for less. That is Capitalism. When anyone suggests that there should be laws protecting all workers, as I do, they are called Communist. Anyone who has read Marx knows that laws to protect the rights of workers is a Marxist ideal. If it is fair and just for union workers to require certain benefits from employers then it should be so for all workers. I have seen both sides. I have been replaced by someone with less experience who would do my job for less money. Working for the state as a social worker, I have had my pay cut by 60% with no warning, then to have it ‘eliminated’ with no warning. I have been hired for a job and then had more and more of my supervisors responsibilities put on me. I have also been witness to my husband, who is owner of a national shipping company, struggling with incompetent workers whom he can not fire without a major ordeal and unreasonable demands from the union, even though he voluntarily pays two dollars more an hour than is consistent with the market. My mother was a union factory worker. She has attested to the fact that the union often protects people who take advantage of the power the union affords them. When workers cost a company money, it is the consumer, you and I, who absorb the cost. Someone always loses when the other side has too much power. There should be laws that protect all workers while still allowing businesses to function as they see fit.