A new poll from Gallup shows the vast majority of Americans approve of labor unions.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A new poll from Gallup shows the vast majority of Americans approve of labor unions.
Gallup found that 67 percent of Americans approve of unions nationwide, in a poll conducted earlier this month. This is the fifth consecutive year that the number has surpassed the longtime average of 62 percent and is a dramatic increase since the all-time low of 48 percent approval in 2009, after the Great Recession.
Approval has taken a slight, four-percentage-point dip since last year. One reason why this may have happened could be the drop in Republican approval. In 2022, 56 percent of Republicans approved of labor unions, and in 2023, that number dropped to 47 percent.
The numbers from Gallup match previous polls that say the same thing: Americans like unions. An AFL-CIO poll published Tuesday found that 71 percent of Americans support labor unions. That number increases to 88 percent for Americans under the age of 30.
The poll also has inspiring numbers for workers currently on strike, or those threatening to do so.
United Auto Workers last week voted to authorize union strikes against General Motors, Ford Motor, and Stellantis. Gallup found that 75 percent of Americans side with UAW members, compared to just 19 percent who side with the auto companies. Seventy-two percent of Americans also side with television and film writers, and 67 percent side with television and film actors over Hollywood.
The number of strikes and striking workers has dramatically increased over the last three years. This year, 119,000 workers went on strike from January to May—nearly the same number as in all of 2022. This has been a hot strike summer. The Writers Guild of America has been striking for over 115 days, since the beginning of May. We’ve also seen strikes from actors, hotel workers, and nurses.
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
Nice news with Labor Day looming.
I like most of us here will be thinking about Unions this holiday weekend.
The Labor Department on Wednesday proposed to extend overtime protection to 3.6 million salaried workers.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, virtually all nonsupervisory salaried workers earning below a designated annual ceiling are entitled to time-and-a-half pay whenever they work in excess of 40 hours. For decades after the FLSA was enacted in 1938, the Labor Department kept that ceiling high enough that most salaried workers—as recently as the 1970s, 65 percent—qualified for overtime pay.
But the Reagan administration, as part of its quiet repeal of the New Deal, stopped raising the ceiling, and as inflation accumulated, overtime coverage eventually applied to below 10 percent of Americans. Where once overtime protection was enjoyed by the middle class, it is now reserved only for the poor.
In 2016, the Obama administration enacted a regulation that more than doubled the cutoff to $47,476, bringing the limit within shouting distance of median household income. But a hard-right federal judge in Texas threw that out. President Donald Trump raised the ceiling to a still-stingy $35,308. That was allowed to stand.
Now the Biden administration proposes raising the ceiling to $55,000, with inflation adjustments every three years. That’s still well below median household income (about $71,000), but it’s a start. Whether the proposed regulation will pass muster in federal court is anybody’s guess.
Sixteen tons and what do you get. Another day older and deeper in debt.
Good to see that younger folks are for unions.
Exactly, unions are people too, my friend.
No, they aren't. They are unions. And corporations are corporations. Both operate subject to Federal and State laws. Neither unions nor corporations are people.
CSEA
Actually, corporate personhood means that corporations are regarded by courts as being responsible for their own actions. They can make commitments, and can be held responsible for those commitments. They can sign contracts and own property. They can sue, and be sued.
Personhood makes it possible to ask that a warranty be honored when the individual maker or seller is no long with the company.
Imo, you do not need to be a person to make legally binding commitments, you need to have the imprimatur of the state and be recognized as a legal fiction, i.e. be incorporated or whatever under the rules of the state. This does not give you personhood, this just gives you standing under governmental control.
Of course they are. Think about the reasons...............
Ummm...because they want better pay? Better benefits? Can you blame them? If it weren't for unions people would still be working 16 hour days 7 days a week
Pay and benefits are negotiable at the time of hire as are working conditions. They want someone to back them up when/if they screw up and want to do just what it takes to stay under the radar. They want what they want and they feel like a union is a big brother.
I have dealt with it in my past as an Industrial Engineer. I worked in a union environment and we redid the whole layout of the facility and I had to set new standards due to that. It was basically piece work. The shop floor was used to making 12-14 hours for 8 hours of work due to the old standards set by the corporate IE who set up the old standard when the plant opened. I set the new standards and there were no more 14 hours of pay for 8 hours. More like in the 9-12 maximum especially on machine controlled jobs (automatic 20% bonus). Got grievance after grievance filed and when the union IE came in to check my studies, he found no problems and in a few cases, said I was being more generous than he would have been.
Mic drop, soap box away.
Sure...if you work for a corportation or manufacturer. There's no negotiating for anything when you take a state job
Good unions balance the power relationship between management and labor.
Pick up your mic.You might need it.
[Deleted]
Because some people want the benefits and advantages of Union membership without paying their dues. They want a free ride.
Unions are one of the reasons we are not serfs.
Then it is a personal choice to not get the things that the Union has gotten for their members and they should want to work somewhere else
"And what do bad unions do?"
things like bad companies do.
you got the answer you asked for
cause some people can't or don't want to see the Union advantages. If you have worked a Union job you should know,
I have worked similar jobs in both a Union factory and non union factory. Both were hot and nasty but I was young and good at the job. After college both offered me Supervisors jobs. but I got something better. For hourly work i would take the Union job, 3x pay, treated right, seniority/qualification system and knew what to expect. ,
You could tell if somebody worked at the Union factory, they had nice house and cars and vacations and spending money, things like that!
TG was speaking of what unions did at their inception. They were a necessary force to combat unrestrained capitalism in the early industrial age.
You are talking about the other extreme where (some) unions provide safe havens for lazy workers.
As is true with almost everything in life, there are good and bad unions. The good unions represent the workers to provide a fair balance with management. The bad unions are corrupt and exploit the members.
I remember my first day in a GM plant. The UAW union steward came up to me and told me where I could hide some parts every day so I could basically do nothing on Friday. When he found out my father was plant manager he mysteriously was transferred to the other side of the plant.
yes, choose to work Union or choose to work somewhere else.
Not to venture too far off topic but I think you support people being able to make choices in other matters too
Unions are the reason workers have any protections and are able to make a decent wage in many cases. Unless you are in upper management or an owner you should support unions. Being anti-union while being working/middle class is basically cutting your own dick off.
That has been already explained to you. You dont have to agree but why do you keep asking the same question over and over?
It strikes me as odd that somebody who claims to be pro-choice regarding union membership ignores union-busting strategies carried out by companies. Should Starbucks employees be allowed to choose to unionize?
I already did let you know, several days ago. You conveniently chose not to notice.
" I still don't think anyone should be forced to give some of their money away just to work, though"
If paying Union dues gets me more pay, better working conditions and benefits than a non union job I would consider that a smart investment, .
" had to be an electrician to change a freaking lightbulb!"
At AVTEX the reward for being the longest serving electrician in the plant was to be the main lightbulb changer. After 25+ years he got a Monday-Friday straight daylight job patrolling and changing lightbulbs and it kept him busy.
You want it to be possible for an employee to freely choose —without consequence— joining a union intact at his/her placement of employment or negotiate an employment contract directly with the employer and without any tie to the extant union.
Is that it or do you have more to say?
Assuming that is your position, then that is a fine idea. Everyone should always be free to make personal choices that affect only themselves.
However, this is not reality. I think you know this.
I doubt anyone disagrees in principle, literally, with the idealized choice you offer.
You do not think that is what I just described??
I doubt anyone disagrees in principle, literally, with the idealized choice you offer.
how about being able to pass a drug test? or providing your own work tools? or wearing a company uniform?
Those and many other conditions are choices of where you apply to work,
I paraphrased your position and then asked if you agreed.
The reason I did this was to ensure clarity.
Then, with this clarity, I offering my opinion:
I doubt anyone disagrees in principle, literally, with the idealized choice you offer.
Really? Who has argued that it would be wrong for people to have free choice if it was practical to do so?
Most social clubs won't let you in if you don't pay your dues. It is your choice to go there but you have to pay dues to get the rewards. Same principal, Club dues get you beer for $2.50 instead of higher at regular bar and Union dues get you higher wages, You get to choose where to go but there is a price for better benefits that must be paid.
Condition of employment
And I think the Union should have the freedom to keep non members out.
Read 13.1.10.
And you told me to let you know who was engaging in unionbusting. I did. You claim I didn't. Read again.
Of course, you've already mentioned their name in reference to it, negating your claim to ignorance.
Do you consider union busting to be anti-choice just as forced membership in a union is anti-choice?
The fact remains that I already mentioned unionbusting, and who was doing it, while you asked me who was unionbusting, then mentioned the perpetrators in the same post. Nobody is buying your pretense, because we can all see what you've posted. Deliberately ignoring what somebody has said when it's inconvenient to one's position is a form of trolling. If you don't want to be called out on it, don't do it.
Oh, you're focusing on what you meant with the word "that" - claiming that you meant "ignoring unionbusting" rather than "unionbusting", itself?
Ok.
You have ignored unionbusting - just sort of glossed right by it, when it was mentioned. Do you believe workers' choice to join a union should be subject to company approval? You claim to be pro-choice with regards to joining a union, when a worker might choose not to do so. Are you equally pro-choice when a worker chooses to do so?
Glad to hear you are against unionbusting.
My question was intended for you to explicitly apply your principle to union busting.
Just answering the question would have sufficed. Getting all emotional makes your reply ridiculous.
I can. You are against union-busting. See? I just made your reply to my question crystal clear since you were unable to do so.
A direct reply to a direct, simple question.
I just explained that to you. See @3.2.63.
I'm anti-freeloader.
"Sick of" is emotional, Texan.
Yes you did. You did it with a highly emotional post and then claimed you could not be clearer.
I demonstrated how easy it was to be clearer and offer a calm answer to my direct, simple question.
So you say. The reality is that non-union workers in a union shop reap the benefits of collective bargaining while not paying the costs. That's freeloading.
I am perfectly content with you posting ridiculous, emotional comments.
Was not trying to. That pretty much is your own doing.
Maybe you should be more careful with your reading.
[deleted]
Does the company go to the store and remove safety equipment advocated for by the union when non-union workers are on the clock?
Of course they don't.
Do they have different policies regarding breaks and overtime for union versus non-union workers?
No.
That's naive.
I have ideological problems with forgiving college loans.
But I also have problems with how the PPP program was run, with businesses that weren't shut down getting windfalls. Freeloading, basically.
So it's easy to understand how John Q. Public might decide that he deserves a piece of that pie as much as the rich guy with an open business does.
I never said you advocated for those things, did I? Read only what I've written, please.
I was pointing out benefits the unions gained from which non-union workers benefit. That's freeloading.
If everyone got the same "stuff" as those not in a union, but equal to what they would have gotten with the union, then who would need unions?
Your argument is incredibly weak. I'm probably going to have to lock this article because you keep saying the same unsupportable thing over and over.
What I am saying is that a workforce needs to be all, or nearly all, unionized in order for the union to function properly. Without full participation the union in that workplace is in jeopardy.
Once the vote is taken to unionize the employees at a company, everyone whose job description fits what the union covers, they need to join the union.
If unions allowed what you want they would be hurting themselves.
Call this argument a day or I am locking this article. You are just repeating yourself over and over.
Everyone who has looked at this seed knows your position. You dont have to say the same exact thing 15 fricking times.
It's still freeloading, Tex. All of the emotion in your comments won't change that.
By the definition of freeliading, that's what it is. You have offered no cogent argument otherwise.
So you say, so you say.
Union members get the compensation and environmental benefits that they can negotiate via collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is empowered by the power of a coalition of workers supporting their union leadership and funding the union's efforts.
They do not 'deserve more' simply because they are union members; they negotiated what they are getting.
That is the concept of labor unions.
You asked a question and I gave an answer (and a rebuttal to your implication). That is how forums work.
Now it is your turn to offer your thoughtful, sensible rebuttal on the content I wrote.
You asked a question, I answered it.
If you did not want an answer then you should have not asked the question.
Again, this is how forums work.
Are you done? If so, move on.
Proud member of the ILWU for years.
Good to hear that most Americans approve of unions.
Proud member of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) labor union which represents over 750,000 employees of the federal government, about 5,000 employees of the District of Columbia, and a few hundred private sector employees, mostly in and around federal facilities.
Beware of the power of unions to affect your lives in negative ways.
I give you Randi Weingarten, police unions that protect the likes of Derek Chauvin, UA/UAW upper management sentenced to prison for corruption. Etc, etc …
Having been on both sides of this coin I always say. Nothing better than a fair and honest union, nothing worse than a bad one.
I think we all agree on that. If union leadership is corrupt then they are no better than the bosses who will drop you wage down to nothing in the blink of an eye.
I fully support honest unions and honest union leadership that keep workers rights and honest wages their primary focus.
Yep, on this we agree. And every union member should be wary of union management. Find out what they are being paid. Wage and benefits.
Many will be shocked or should be.
Was ACTWU, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union member when I worked at AVTEX Fibers
Work Union Live Better
My father was a member of the UAW and then UMW. He was the safety rep for his union. He participated in some wild cat strikes and ball busting of scags (picket line crossers, I think that's what they're called)
Scabs. There was no wildcat strike, but when they were locked out, my dad's union, Dad included, made sure scabs knew exactly what they thought of them. Things were never violent, but they were tense.
Scabs! That's it! My brain doesn't work very well these days. I won't go into what my dad did because I'll just get a lot of grief
Was once a member of an agency hired to break a strike using violence.
I quit ESI (executive security International) the next day.
Didn't hire on for that. Thought that I would be protecting starlets.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons the company was found to be bargaining in bad faith by the NLRB - months before the contract was set to expire, the company started hiring armed guards from out of the area, and cutting down trees to install lighting and cameras along the access road to the plant. The union offered to work under the existing contract while a new one was negotiated, but the first shift to start after midnight was met with armed guards, told to clean out their lockers, and leave, while non-union workers (scabs) were escorted inside by those same armed guards. Then the company tried to call it a "strike". That went on for 2 years, and my dad was the sole breadwinner in our family. Mom went back to work, but it was for minimum wage and no benefits. We would have lost our house, if not for the union covering a few of the mortgage payments, and providing food via a food pantry at the union hall.
I've never been a union member, and am in fact an employer, but I'm a direct beneficiary of the benefits unions provide, and I saw what happens when corporations are allowed free rein.
I hated the contract strikes. Happened twice when I was in high school. But Mom was good at saving money and she learned to apply for food stamps and applied for free lunch at school. We never had to go thru years but 4-6 months of no money from the only bread winner....life gets tough
That's the only time I remember negotiations over a new contract being that bad, and it was entirely because the company didn't actually intend to negotiate. It intended to abolish the union and replace the union workers with scabs.
And a lot of those scabs - well, we heard things. Rapes inside the aluminum plant with the police not allowed in to arrest anybody. Fights. They moved into the older, run-down part of town and more police patrols were needed. Some were local, but a lot were from out of the county. Not many locals would cross the picket lines, because they didn't want to show their faces around town the next day.
I remember a few times Dad was "laid off" during contract negotiations, but those didn't last long. We laughed one time, because he got the call that he was laid off at 8 one morning, and was reinstated at noon.
My dad worked for Bethlehem Steel now known as BethEnergy. Bethlehem Steel was huge in our area. They had 3 working mines within 10 miles of each other.
The mines played out, tho and the power plants could get cheaper coal from the strip operations in Wyoming
Mine worked for Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation. It started out as Kaiser Aluminum, and in Kaiser's day, it was a boon to the county. Good pay and benefits. Lots of company support for local schools. A huge park for employee use with picnic shelters, softball fields, concessions stands, driving range, putting greens, an outdoor stage with dressing rooms for plays and concerts, and a "mansion" for indoor events. It seemed like half the county was at KERA (Kaiser Employees Recreational Area) most weekends for something. Softball tournaments, family reunions, or just hanging out at the playground, hitting golf balls, or flying model airplanes. A lot of weekends, skydivers would land there. We could see them from our house. We all learned to ride our bikes there, and Dad gave me my first driving lessons in their parking lot. My brother jogged around it when he was trying to make weight for wrestling.
That park no longer functions as such. Somebody has cut a lot of the timber from it, and there are often round bales of hay there, so I guess it's being used for something. But not for the employees' families anymore. It's no longer the weekend social center for the county during warmer months. The gates are always locked when I drive by.
That's a shame
It is. Kaiser was a very civic-minded company, and attempted to attract and retain good employees by helping to create a supportive community. It was a great place to grow up. Once they sold out, it went downhill fast.
As was Krupp during the German leg of the Industrial Revolution. If hubby died on the job his wife got free housing for the rest of her years.
I was a member of NFFE which was affiliated with AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO threw us under the bus for political promises.
I find this poll to be erroneous.
The numbers do tell a different story.
Companies have too much power, Unions give protection and power to the workers
The same can be said for unions.
To think otherwise is simply obtuse.
but which one will protect the workers?
"Why are unions having so much trouble finding members?"
Many of the good manufacturing jobs went to foreign countries. All the factories I worked at, management and hourly, closed and the jobs went overseas.
Agree with this part; unions have (in general, not true for all unions) grown past the point where they provided a fair balance of work value and compensation.
And plenty won't. Enough that workers have been made to feel that they can't take vacation time that they've earned without possibly losing that next promotion, or having their job on the chopping block in the next round of cuts.
Enough that working "off the clock" is expected, whether it's illegal or not.
Lawsuits only work when you can afford a lawyer. A company may be able to do so. An individual may not. Unions even out that discrepancy.
Fast food restaurants are not career type jobs and are on low end of pay and skill level.
To some extent, the low percentage of unionization could be due to unions achieving their goals. Workplace safety was certainly not an employer goal. Getting children out of dangerous occupations wasn't an employer goal. Overtime pay and mandated breaks during the workday were not employer goals. They were union goals, and they were achieved. Well, in most places, anyway. Some states don't have mandated breaks for workers, and some are rolling back child labor laws (how proud they must be!).
But to some extent, it's also because of union-busting activity by companies. People are afraid they'll lose their jobs if they think about unionizing. Starbucks, you know, they of the plain red cup that caused such holiday furor among some conservatives, shut down stores and fired employees when faced with unionization. If you think people should have the choice to join a union or not, can we assume that you have a problem with Starbucks engaging in such tactics?
The justification is that all employees benefit from union membership, including benefits, such as legal representation and PACs, paid for by member dues. Nobody likes a freeloader.
And this (as a trend) has grown progressively worse since the early 80's.
In my perfect world half the work force would be union. The other half non-union. Each keeping the other in balance ….. theoretically.
My company using union labor (our choice) had to compete with a much higher percentage of non-union labor companies. It was about 20/80 in our area. The net effect was our total labor cost package per hour (misguided union driven) was over double our competitors.
That said I take pride in the fact that everyone who retired from our company won’t become wards of the state unless they are total financial idiots. They retire with a good pension and healthcare. My competitors employees? Not so much. Not even close actually.
Why would anyone join a union and pay dues if they could get the benefits of the union's negotiations with the company anyway? How long would unions last if a significant part of a work force says they dont want to join but they'll take the union negotiated raises and benefits anyway, thank you very much.
I dont think every workplace should be union, but when a majority of the workforce votes to unionize either pay the dues or find another job.
Yup.
I worked for a health clinic right out of dental school. It had two locations at that time, and I worked at the smaller one, with smaller staff.
We had half an hour for lunch. The phones had to be answered, even if the calls came in during lunch. We tried to stagger breaks so that somebody was always covering the phones, but it just didn't work most days. When we asked management what to do, they told us that the phones had to be answered, but that everybody must clock out for lunch. Basically, they were saying somebody had to work through their lunch unpaid, but they wouldn't put it exactly that way, because they knew what they were expecting was illegal. That would have been 2.5 unpaid hours of work every week for some employee, and it would have been overtime pay.
One of the reasons I left - blatant attempts at skirting employment law by engaging in wage theft.
But this was in very rural WV. Very few people could afford to walk away from a full-time job with health insurance, so they put up with it. So they bit the bullet and worked off the clock.
Then they can forego the benefits of membership by avoiding union shops.
Companies have already shown that they are not willing to do this, as I've already explained. They do not allow workers to choose to join a union. Your way puts the control in the hands of the company, which is every bit as much against personal choice, but, unlike the union, has a profit motive leading it to abuse workers.
Last year Starbucks gave raises and additional benefits to workers at its non-union stores, but not to its unionized workers. Their argument was that the Union stores have to negotiate any raise or benefits as part of a contract.
I do not see how balance would be preserved or if balance is even valuable between union and ¬union workers. Unions were a response to overbearing companies exploiting the workers. So unions are a natural balance to company management; not with other workers. (And even here, the balance is not very stable.)
A perfect world would be one where everyone is fairly but unequally compensated monetarily and in terms of control based on their value to the company and that the balance of fairness would be systemic and natural. An example of this is a truly free market where competitive choice, availability of resources, and supply / demand determines price and availability of goods and services. In the workplace this would be something like workplace democracy where the workers are the owners, everyone contributes, everyone has a say (albeit unequal) in the decisions / decision-making but those with higher value (as determined by the workers) to the company have better compensation, etc.
Not sure that this is ever going to be possible since political human beings are very good at finding ways to screw things up in pursuit of personal gains. Case in point is the ruined but brilliant balance of power, checks & balances of our Constitution. But since we are musing on a perfect world, our CotUS' balance of power, laissez-faire free market and workplace democracy seem like very good theories.
In short, I think workplace democracy (in some form) makes more sense than an artificial balance of union and non-union.
Or, people are more intimidated by companies that can and will harm them financially than by unions, which might help them, but have no wish to harm them. People are more scared of the stick than attracted by the carrot.
Where I'm from, people remember that companies could and did hire people to murder union organizers. Not many laborers have the ability to hire a hit man and defend themselves for it in court afterward.
Great comeback, Texan.
Exactly, you never read about Union Leaders working with organized crime on any deal’s including murder. /s
Did they often attempt to shoot the police chief with the approval of the local judiciary?
.
The Battle of Matewan [ edit ]
Sid Hatfield was later assassinated by Baldwin-Felts agents, who were not convicted.
That's the kind of power companies could buy. And that's why unionization was the response.
In addition, most jobs do not have extant unions. In my field, for example, unions are not a consideration. Unions best serve workers who are easily replaced.
And there are plenty of 'good' companies that offer compensation and a workplace environment that is sufficient and thus the employees have little motivation to unionize.
Also, unfortunately, too many people are complacent and are okay with status quo ... good enough. Unionization is tough work and risky and that is a deterrent.
Your comment made no argument, offered no reasoning. It illustrated the absence of a cogent rebuttal.
In one of the incidents my dad participated in, the mine workers organized a protest at a trucking company that was using scab drivers. Now, I'm not saying the miners were totally without fault because they did try to block the trucks from leaving.
The state police showed up and that's when the trouble started. The LT in charge of the troop came straight at my dad with his club in his hand and was going to bash Dad's head in. Dad was always a target because he was always the tallest/biggest man around. Dad managed to stop him I think by punching him in the face and that made Dad guilty of assaulting a cop. Two of my uncles ended up in the hospital and were actually arrested. My dad escaped the cops.
So, yes, unions are guilty of violence but so are the people that try to bust up unions
That was one of many historical attempts to break strikes and Union.
Union Racketeering is not only historical but current as well:
Yes. Same in my field. A good dental assistant, hygienist, or office worker is not easily replaced, and is therefore less likely to need a union. I am lucky in my employees, pay them well, offer benefits (not great, but that's a matter of what is available to small businesses, and they are involved in the shopping process, so they're aware of that), and don't ask them to work off the clock. I'll be going to the office in a bit for the IT guy to replace a computer.
I do hear of abuses, though, and they are endured by those whose choices boil down to "put up with it, or lose your job."
So, no assassinations of public officials in broad daylight on the courthouse steps by union members, then?
Look, I'm not going to say unions don't have their problems. They do. There has been corruption. There have been outrageous concessions demanded by unions that harm the ability of companies to stay in business, hiring union workers. Some union officials are ill-intentioned. Some have good intentions, but are short-sighted and lack business acumen.
But the bad behavior of company execs made unions necessary, and the sins of unions haven't approached the severity of those of the worst employers.
Why should some get a free ride? There were some at AVTEX that were not Union members but when they got a hearing the Union representative was there for them.
If they get the benefits, pay and support the Union won and don't pay dues then they are getting a free ride at Union members expense,
There was a union rep, usually the business agent, and foreman from another department at all hearings
I think they are a lot like illegal immigrants. coming into the country, getting things without doing anything to deserve them
It costs the Union members the Business Agent's time as he was paid by the Union and was to be at all employee hearings. I think that was so the company could say the employee had a representative. So that was Union money spent on a person who did not pay,
Hey, as I said elsewhere here, we need both but I can tell you, I dealt with four or five different unions. Most were clueless as to the difficulties my companies experienced v more urban areas. We lost many job opportunities because of it.
It is what it is …..
Some of the biggest guidos I ever dealt with were BA’s and union reps. On negotiation day they would pull up in their gold Cadillacs, sporting Mr T starter kits around their necks and try to intimidate us.
It was kind of amusing.
We remained a faithful union contractor for nearly 50 years in spite of their strong arm tactics and attempted to educate them in the intricacies of more rural contracting. Most were clueless and only cared about raising wages and benefits. Ultimately it forced us to close the doors as we weren’t interested in switching to non union. So now, their biggest contractor in our area, us, is now gone.
A fail for the union due mainly to greed. A story that is repeated regularly and a big reason union membership is flagging.
The ILWU has one day that no one works and is a legal holiday for Longies.
''Bloody Thursday'' happened on July 5, 1934 when two longies were killed and hundreds wounded by San Francisco cops. It changed the face of the West Coast ports with unionized longshoremen united and strikes took place up and down the West Coast ports pitting longies against companies and their goons, police and hired guns. A total of six workers were shot or beaten to death on the West Coast by police or company goons during the course of the strike.
From this the strikers won and a guy named Harry Bridges, a longie came to power and changed not only the face of shipping but also many of the innovations that came to be pushed by Harry Bridges.
As a side story, in the 1970s a friend of mine was working for Sealand in Alaska and was out at night checking reefer containers loaded with fish, it was cold as could be with the wind blowing when up pulled a car and the window rolled down and the guy hollers at my friend, ''Hey Tuna how are those reefers doing'' my friend calls out, ''who in the fucks wants to know''. The response from the car was, ''Harry Bridges, Tuna''...From that time on my friend was known as ''Tuna'' he ended up being the Executive VP of Worldwide Operations for American President Lines. He retired in 2008 and the last time that he saw Harry was in Seattle Harry said ''Hey Tuna it's not as cold as Alaska is it?'' They had remained friends even though on opposite sides, union/management. Harry died in 1990, a hell of a man.
You have been given the answer repeatedly and you keep trying to make the same silly point.
Whether someone is in a union or not, in other words contributing to the union with dues, or not, whether going on the picket line or not, they benefit from what the union negotiated for the shop.
This being the case, how long would unions last if people dont have to join in order to receive the fruits of the unions activity?
Do everyone here a favor and stop trying to make a point you can never win on.
This is one of the factors that encourages cooperative workplaces / workplace democracy. It synthesizes the concept of workers and management. Seems like this could be a future, stable mode of operation but we are a long way (culturally) from evolving to something like this.
Having personal experience with unions is probably going to determine whether you are supportive of one or not. I was lucky enough after getting out of the military and having two kids to have a friend whose father was instrumental in getting me into the ILWU. It changed my life since the pay was outstanding as were the benefits (they still are) and I was able to raise two kids and my wife did not have to work. It was hard work and required working nights and weekends but it also allowed us to be middle class for the first time in my life and purchase a home (that's a whole other story).
I am to this day a very strong union supporter and always will be.
Unions are strength in numbers
There is also tyranny in numbers. It’s not always all that and a bag of chips.
I’ve experience this directly as a union member and a manager of union labor.
Right to work laws really mean few rights at work
Unions built the USA. PERIOD.
"Unions built the USA. PERIOD."
and made it a good place to live in!
From the comments here only a small part of the US workforce is unionized. The argument of allowing non-union members to work at a union shop seems to be not only silly but counterproductive for the union shop.
If it's arguing for arguing sake it is a pointless endeavor but if that is what one needs have at it.
Union shops will not allow non-union members in, it's as simple as that and they are correct in their stance. They have worked/organized/paid dues/negotiated their labor rights and in some cases dealt with union busting/violence to ensure that their members are protected and unionized. In the process, they have gained wage concessions and improved benefits from the company and the non-union people have invested nothing to that end thus they will never be allow into a union shop.