DRAFT: Unions as they currently are are a dead end

<p>I'm extremely union-skeptic because I have never needed a union to get or keep a job or the compensation I deserve. In fact, my entire industry of software design and Information Technology is completely Non-Union, with the sole exception of the low-skilled work necessary to maintain the wires themselves, which are increasingly irrelevant.</p> <p>&#160;</p> <p>So here's the big problem Unions are facing now, and will face in the future:. You have a bunch of people who are desigining the next version of this world, and not a single one of us has any loyalty at all to any Union. As a result, you will see automation take over jobs that used to have people doing them. People will be replaced with machines that can do the job much more efficiently and accurately. Professional standards will raise to the point where people from unions just can't keep up - not because they are physically unable, but because of union rules that limit a person's productivity.</p> <p>&#160;</p> <p>In other words, unions as they currently are are a dead end. An anachronism.&#160;Their&#160;refusal to even consider a third way will leave unions dying, as they should. And once the last private sector union is eradicated from the US, it will be very easy to convince the public that public sector unions are a luxury we shouldn't have to pay for.</p> <p>&#160;</p> <p>And it could have been prevented if they could have just listened to a little advice.</p>

Comments

Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 11, 2018 - 12:41pm
And it could have been prevented if they could have just listened to a little advice.
 
Oh great one do give us the benefit of your extensive bargaining agreement negotiations. 
 
Dino Manalis Added Oct 11, 2018 - 1:30pm
 Union and management officials should work together to reach mutually beneficial economic decisions, because they have common interests.  Workers want work and employers seek profits to pay them!
Johnny Fever Added Oct 11, 2018 - 3:17pm
Private sector unions were rendered obsolete long ago. Full eradication will probably never happen, but compared to the power they once wielded, they’re essentially eradicated already. So in terms of information, you’ve offered nothing we haven’t already known for decades.
 
As for the suggestion public sector unions will follow, that’s just wishful thinking. After all, in the face of what’s happened to private sector unions, public unions have held strong. I have no idea why voters continue to tolerate them or what we could do to change things for the better. The article you should have written is one that offers some suggestions on how to rid them from the public sector.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 11, 2018 - 6:35pm
Even public unions for government workers will change forever.  The present existence of these unions is the creation of the ever increasing socialist government.  Even the most effective socialist president did not favor public unions.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), actually warned about that very danger in a letter he wrote in 1937 to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees: 
“The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”
Continued:
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”
 
The Supreme Court in February 2018 have changed the growth of public sector union that have been approve by FDR's own party because they actually provided a significant portion of the money and human power to the Dim party.  Consider the normal distribution of population choice to support a political party at most only 1/3 of the teaches would choose to support the candidate that the party leaders are funding with the public employees forced to join the union as a requirement for employment.: 
“This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority.(Feb.26.2018) “If we accepted Illinois’ argument, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
A. Jones Added Oct 11, 2018 - 7:48pm
When given a choice in right-to-work states whether to join a union or not to join one, the majority of workers choose NOT to join one.
 
There's nothing in a right-to-work state that legally forbids or prevents workers from voluntarily joining unions; they simply choose not to do so. Workers join unions when they DON'T have a choice NOT to join. That should say something about unions.
Spartacus Added Oct 12, 2018 - 12:08am
I have never needed a union to get or keep a job or the compensation I deserve.  In fact, my entire industry of software design and Information Technology is completely Non-Union, with the sole exception of the low-skilled work
 
I think you missed the biggest and most obvious point for unions.
Hazardous jobs are the big reason for union protections.  This was the origin for unions and remains the biggest reason for unions.  Typing on a keyboard is not considered worthy to be deemed "risky". 
People who use their bodies for work have a "cost" for business which hourly pay does not compensate.  This cost is the long-term damage caused by repetitive stress. . . even kneeling down on a floor or turning a screw.
 
Any other unions which provide a shell for non-risky jobs are just political schemes.  On this point, I agree with you.
Cullen Kehoe Added Oct 12, 2018 - 1:13am
I think unions for companies like Walmart or Amazon would be superior to having the government get involved in forcing these companies to pay higher wages. Bernie Sanders is already talking about introducing bills to have Uncle Sam force 'very successful' companies (whatever that means) to pay their employees more.
 
Theoretically speaking, having a Walmart union, or retail workers union would be far superior to getting the government into the wage-setting business.
 
Manufacturing companies had success for many years with unions. I think it got a bit excessive in the 50's and 60's. A union guy had to do this or that, nothing could happen without a man from the union coming by to do it (Chicago Trade shows, etc...).