PDA

View Full Version : Union Myths



Sev
03-09-2011, 03:30 PM
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/03/08/union_myths

<span style="color: #000000">The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for the workers. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians.

Nothing shows the utter cynicism of the unions and the politicians who do their bidding like the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" that the Obama administration tried to push through Congress. Employees' free choice as to whether or not to join a union is precisely what that legislation would destroy.

Workers already have a free choice in secret-ballot elections conducted under existing laws. As more and more workers in the private sector have voted to reject having a union represent them, the unions' answer has been to take away secret-ballot elections.

Under the "Employee Free Choice Act," unions would not have to win in secret-ballot elections in order to represent the workers. Instead, union representatives could simply collect signatures from the workers until they had a majority.

Why do we have secret ballots in the first place, whether in elections for unions or elections for government officials? To prevent intimidation and allow people to vote how they want to, without fear of retaliation.

This is a crucial right that unions want to take away from workers. The actions of union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere give us a free home demonstration of how little they respect the rights of those who disagree with them and how much they rely on harassment and threats to get what they want.

It takes world-class chutzpah to call circumventing secret ballots the "Employee Free Choice Act." To unions, workers are just the raw material used to create union power, just as iron ore is the raw material used by U.S. Steel and bauxite is the raw material used by the Aluminum Company of America.

The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.

There are limits to how long unions can siphon off money from businesses, without facing serious economic repercussions.

The most famous labor union leader, the legendary John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers from 1920 to 1960, secured rising wages and job benefits for the coal miners, far beyond what they could have gotten out of a free market based on supply and demand.

But there is no free lunch.

An economist at the University of Chicago called John L. Lewis "the world's greatest oil salesman."
His strikes that interrupted the supply of coal, as well as the resulting wage increases that raised its price, caused many individuals and businesses to switch from using coal to using oil, leading to reduced employment of coal miners. The higher wage rates also led coal companies to replace many miners with machines.

The net result was a huge decline in employment in the coal mining industry, leaving many mining towns virtually ghost towns by the 1960s. There is no free lunch.

Similar things happened in the unionized steel industry and in the unionized automobile industry. At one time, U.S. Steel was the largest steel producer in the world and General Motors the largest automobile manufacturer. No more. Their unions were riding high in their heyday, but they too discovered that there is no free lunch, as their members lost jobs by the hundreds of thousands.

Workers have also learned that there is no free lunch, which is why they have, over the years, increasingly voted against being represented by unions in secret ballot elections.

One set of workers, however, remained largely immune to such repercussions. These are government workers represented by public sector unions.

While oil could replace coal, while U.S. Steel dropped from number one in the world to number ten, and Toyota could replace General Motors as the world's leading producer of cars, government is a monopoly. Nobody is likely to replace the federal or state bureaucracies, no matter how much money the unions drain from the taxpayers.

That is why government unions continue to thrive while private sector unions decline. Taxpayers

</span>

pooltchr
03-09-2011, 04:09 PM
Exactly what many of us have been saying for years. Unions are nothing more than a vehicle for a group (union leaders) to gain power. They use their members as pawns in their quest for power, throw them the occasional bone in the form of a raise, and destroy the companies to the point that the workers end up with nothing.

If the unions are allowed to destroy the companies, there is no employer left to offer jobs. And the unions aren't going to put all those laid off workers to work for them.

The businesses have no recourse other than to move somewhere to get away from the unions. Why are the newest auto plants in the country in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, etc? 4 words. Right to work states!

Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Steve

Sev
03-09-2011, 07:37 PM
The unions just got delivered a huge blow tonight in Wisconsin!!

LWW
03-10-2011, 04:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Steve </div></div>

Because it isn't a party approved source.

Qtec
03-10-2011, 05:05 AM
Total crap as usual.

Q

LWW
03-10-2011, 05:58 AM
Excellent post BTW.

pooltchr
03-10-2011, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Total crap as usual.

Q </div></div>

Well, since you offer nothing to present any reasons why this isn't accurate, we can only assume that the above post is self-descriptive of your own contribution to this thread.

Steve

JohnnyD
03-10-2011, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The unions just got delivered a huge blow tonight in Wisconsin!! </div></div>Excellent post.

Sev
03-10-2011, 08:59 AM
Why thank you LWW and JohhnyD!!

eg8r
03-10-2011, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exactly what many of us have been saying for years. Unions are nothing more than a vehicle for a group (union leaders) to gain power. They use their members as pawns in their quest for power, throw them the occasional bone in the form of a raise, and destroy the companies to the point that the workers end up with nothing.

</div></div>Can a lefty here explain why they are OK with the Union leaders being very wealthy while they fight for every raise but they get pissed off the actual CEO of the business, you know the one that pays their wage because the union leader won't, is wealthy?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-10-2011, 12:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exactly what many of us have been saying for years. Unions are nothing more than a vehicle for a group (union leaders) to gain power. They use their members as pawns in their quest for power, throw them the occasional bone in the form of a raise, and destroy the companies to the point that the workers end up with nothing.

</div></div>Can a lefty here explain why they are OK with the Union leaders being very wealthy while they fight for every raise but they get pissed off the actual CEO of the business, you know the one that pays their wage because the union leader won't, is wealthy?

eg8r </div></div>

I know of no union leaders who are very wealthy, at least very wealthy because of their union SALARY. I take very wealthy to at least have more money than me, so show me some (at least) 7-figure net worth union leaders, or there's nothing to respond to in your post.

wolfdancer
03-10-2011, 12:18 PM
So maybe both parties earn their keep. We can still envy the salaries and bonus's of one since they are dependent,in some part, on controlling costs, i.e. our recompense,... and have little objection to overcompensating, in most cases, the people that are representing us and working to see that we are fairly rewarded for our labor.
Next question....
Who would you rather see rewarded...one who is working for your interests, or one that is viewed as working against.
My first job after my Navy service was for Westinghouse. As the new contract was about to be negotiated, the Company held several mandatory meetings for us proles, selling us instead on COL pay raises.....as the economy was in bad shape,we didn't want to strike, and so we bought into it. Turned out the economy did a turnaround, and the company regretted that move.

eg8r
03-10-2011, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who would you rather see rewarded...one who is working for your interests, or one that is viewed as working against.
</div></div>How about a slightly different viewpoint...One who is working to keep his cushy do little position by appearing to be working for you, or the one that is keeping the business in business so you are gainfully employed?

eg8r

eg8r
03-10-2011, 02:26 PM
Wow, your post makes is sound like you roll with a bunch of union leaders. Anyways, I will have to search for the info that came out about the south florida union heads.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-10-2011, 02:40 PM
both sides have an agenda and a responsibility; the employer to his stockholders, the Union leaders to their members.
Both sides have been equally guilty of using violence in the past,
to achieve their goals.
American labor is now competing against foreign labor in the manufacturing industry, and we are at a huge disadvantage. I don't have an answer for how Americans can pay their maintenance bills, and get by on such niggardly wages....and then be able to afford these same foreign made products?
I remember the outcry, when even our I.T. jobs were being farmed out to India.....
Thank God I still have my paper route!! and can scam food stamps.lol

wolfdancer
03-10-2011, 04:00 PM
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. " Martin Niemollar

JohnnyD
03-10-2011, 04:16 PM
The truth will set you free.

STOLEN VALOR ACT

ugotda7
03-10-2011, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. " Martin Niemollar </div></div>

Irrelevant to this issue....and I think you know that.

wolfdancer
03-10-2011, 06:11 PM
I'm hoping ...."they" will be coming after you

LWW
03-10-2011, 07:01 PM
He only knows what the party lets him know.

Soflasnapper
03-10-2011, 07:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, your post makes is sound like you roll with a bunch of union leaders. Anyways, I will have to search for the info that came out about the south florida union heads.

eg8r </div></div>

I've been in three unions, with two different experiences.

In the first two unionized jobs, I was a prole, and not so interested in what was happening.

In the last union job, our shop was a local of the Wineries and Distilleries Union, with our real local situated in Oakland, CA. Our guys threatened causing a decertification election for us and for the Oakland crew, causing the union to let us go from their mobbed-up dictates. (Mr. Gene Buffalino was the union rep, and the brother of the last man known to have been seen with Jimmy Hoffa before his disappearance.)

I looked at some claims of highly paid union bosses just recently, and I think it was posted on this board. It's very hard to find any above $200k a year, which of course is obscenely rich for a union leader, although $250k is 'not at all rich,' according to the same sources.

pooltchr
03-10-2011, 08:08 PM
I thought $250k was the line that determined "rich" when the Dems were trying to sell us on their tax plans. So, by your party's own standards, I think that is the benchmark they set forth.

Steve

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Total crap as usual.

Q </div></div>

Well, since you offer nothing to present any reasons why this isn't accurate, we can only assume that the above post is self-descriptive of your own contribution to this thread.

Steve </div></div>

Deductive reasoning can only lead to that conclusion.

BRAVO!

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought $250k was the line that determined "rich" when the Dems were trying to sell us on their tax plans. So, by your party's own standards, I think that is the benchmark they set forth.

Steve </div></div>

The bar ... too high ... much too high.