Posted on 08/06/2010 8:27:25 AM PDT by NetRight Nation
A common argument made by some Republicans and conservatives is that labor unions were necessary in society a hundred years ago, but they are no longer needed in today’s workplace. This argument, however, has many flaws. When looking deep into the history of the labor movement, unless you support a society modeled closely around that of the U.S.S.R., labor unions were not just unnecessary a hundred years ago, but have created lasting damage and are still continuing to wreak havoc across the nation.
Many fail to see the downside of the American labor movement at the time of its inception. Few remember that it was a product of the progressive movement, which created many of the problems in society that we deal with today.
Just take a look at the progress that the labor unions have made in their short history. From just 90 years ago, labor unions have gone from trying to “protect” the workers that they represented to taking complete control of the companies that they were “protecting” them from. In essence, they have a track record of completely dismantling the companies that they have set up shop in.
If you need an example of this, just look to Detroit. Of the Big 3 automakers, two have ceased to exist in the form that they did for most of the 20th century. One of them, Chrysler, has been completely taken over by the United Auto Workers, a union that sought to protect the employees of the car manufacturers from the supposed “greedy” leadership that was going to sell the workers short.
The UAW can even claim General Motors as a victim of their ruthlessness. GM has completely disappeared from being a publicly traded, privately owned mega company into a publicly owned, taxpayer funded zombie corporation all due to labor union malfeasance.
The goal of the unions has not been to protect the workers, but to stop private companies from turning profits that they claim do not enrich the employees that made them possible. Instead, the unions have taken far greater roles in dismantling the companies that pay the workers handsomely and in turn, destroy the companies while enriching only the union leadership.
In short, labor unions have turned into a total scam. They hustle money from the paychecks of those they represent and pad the pockets of those in leadership — selling short the employees that could live better lives without the so-called protection offered by Big Labor.
While the auto unions provide a good look at what Big Labor has done to private industry, the same type of damage has been done in the public sector.
Teachers unions have made it nearly impossible for poorly performing teachers to be removed from the classroom. The harm done hurts the students and the taxpayers that pay for these services. Teachers unions care nothing about the level of education offered, but look more to what they will earn on the taxpayer dole.
Just look at what is happening in New Jersey. When Governor Chris Christie attempted to clean up the New Jersey education system, he was met with stiff resistance from the teachers unions, even though the taxpayers wanted a change. The unions are not in the business of providing better services; they are simply in it for the interests of the union leadership.
The federal government should not go without blame either. It is the fault of Congress that has led to such powerful labor unions across the country. With legislation such as the Wagner Act, which created the National Labor Relations Board, unions have become institutionalized in America.
There is much more wrong with Big Labor in America and this is simply the tip of the iceberg. But at no point in American history has there evern been a need for such organizations such as the SEIU, AFL, NEA, UAW, and so on to “protect” workers in the workplace.
Americans have always had the ability to vote with their feet. If a job is bad, they can move on. But at no point has a hustler of one’s paychecks been necessary for the greater good. And to believe so is to lose trust in the free market system that made America great.
Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com for Americans for Limited Government.
Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2010/08/were-labor-unions-ever-necessary/#ixzz0vq7RAoDM
bookmark
Labor unions sprang to life, originally, as a means to solve a problem. They may not have been the best, most efficient, etc. means to solving that problem, but they were created to solve a real problem affecting people at the time.
This article is trying to debate whether they were an appropriate means, which is an entirely different (and exceedingly academic) exercise.
The “brutality” you speak of and “slavery” (except for, of course, African Americans in the pre-industrial south) is from a greatly over-simplified view of what society was like in the 19th century (at least in the USA). This view is heavily influenced by Union propoganda.
Life was poor, short, and difficult, for sure. Unions didn’t improve it. Only technological advancement and economic growth allowed this to change. Unions played (and still play) NO PART in technological advancement, or increased economic productivity. In fact, unions are probably a net negative to overall increased productivity
Labor unions are socialistic constructs which exist solely through the explicit threat of violence or the coercive power of the state. Their purpose is to extract more money, from most or all of their host entity’s profits, to their members and leadership than what those individuals would be worth in a free market. As with other forms of socialism, in the long term companies which have labor unions and nations which institutionalized them will be internally corrupted and financially bled dry.
That passage prevents the feds from interfereing in employment contracts through regulation, it doesn’t give them the power to do so.
You have just cited the passage I was referencing in my initial post about it being unconstitutional for the federal government to pass labor laws.
The passage prohibits it to the states, but the Feds need not be prohibited since they are only permitted to do that which is ennumerated in the constitution, and this definitely is not.
It is not only false but dangerous to a society that values individual rights, including the rights to contract and to own property.
Whatever injustices existed before unions came into being--and there were--the harm done since has been much greater. Strikes, boycotts, destroyed equipment, delayed or stolen shipments, spoiled foodstuffs and outright violence against persons and property are only the visible part of the iceberg. Much bigger is the transfer of management functions from the owners (i.e., shareholders and managers) to outsiders who claim to represent unionized employees but in reality represent only themselves.
Displacement of management responsibility cascades down from the headquarters of large businesses to every branch office and factory, where work rules demand that certain tasks only be performed by union members and in the exact way prescribed--which is often the most time-consuming and costly.
Government unions, the fastest growing segment of the trade union movement, should have never been allowed to form in the first place. We all pay a premium in higher taxes for the reduced efficiency they have created, whether at the local fire department or in the bowels of federal office buildings.
And the generous pension plans that have been foisted on state and local governments will eventually bankrupt both. Maybe that's what will put the country back on track. We can only hope.
Are you saying that what I am telling you about my mother’s experiences in the public schools is fiction?
Hello, I was there.
Yes, I know that there was a communist tinge to that erea. But there was a tinge to that era because this really happened. I knew the children of Oakies. And it has been amply documented in numerous sources.
It was the churches, not the unions, that pressed for child labor laws. Those laws were on the books in many states before any viable unions ever existed. Later, the unions supported strengthening child labor laws, but not out of compassion. At the same time they were pressing for laws to forbid women and minorities in the workplace. Most of the early appeal of the unions was due to their racist agendas.
Fiction — exactly.
Teachers, as part of the union, probably actually give up their legal right to sue the administration for most harms that evil principals may perpetrate against them.
The whole thing is a deplorable hoax.
Teachers unions? Think about it.
I saw an article on FR last week that said a particular state was in such dire financial straits that it was actually contemplating implementing a program of broad school choice to save money.
This would be wonderful.
Then get rid of the bureaucracy. And, obviously, as you agree, the existence of the teachers union did nothing to manage your mother's work hours, etc.
As for the violence in the schools, it must be dealt with. Period. But, again, as you said, unions have done nothing to ameliorate that situation either.
I have no doubt that teaching in public school is a difficult job, for a bunch of reasons. But that does nothing to support the existence of unions. Sorry, but the entire concept of government schools and compulsory education is fatally flawed from the get-go. Unions have only made the situation much, much worse by squandering trillions of tax dollars over the decades and by saddling the future with unsustainable pension costs -- all without adding a hair of a goat to education or, as you agree, improving teachers' lot.
The question was a challenge to give a single reason why public employees should be allowed to join a union. I gave a single reason. "freedom of association." We have no business telling employees, public or private that they cannot associate with unions.
But your question is different. I do not think the US government should be signing contracts with public employee unions. I have no problem with those unions existing. I have a huge problem with the government requiring employees to belong to them as a condition of employment.
I don't either. But neither do I wish to limit who another American associates with. If a soldier wishes to join a union, I could care less. However, I don't want the US government entering into a contract with a "soldier's union."
In the same way, I could care less if a public employee joins a union... he has the freedom of association. However, I do not want the US government to require union membership as a condition for employment.
When the government becomes a union, then they are now more than the government or servants of the people, at our command.
I’m surprised that you approve of the Army changing itself into an armed union, unionized against the American people like other government unions are. That is when they start dictating to us and running our government the way that government unions have taken over our major cities.
Who needs child labor laws. Those kids are all just communists anyhow (sarc)
If you can't see the obvious propaganda in this article...This is FR. Even if it is an issue people on here are sympathetic to they are not just a bunch of lemmings to be fed obvious BS.
Makes me wonder if whoever posted this is a DUmmie planting a story here.
I am not a fan of labor unions, as I have seen the corruption in the UAW. Husband has had grievance filed against him for silly, stupid stuff. But on the other hand, had my 61 year old father not been a member of a railroad union he would have been let go without his pension when his job was abolished. The union was able to make them find him another job for the 18 months he needed. Of course, that was 36 years ago. A lot has changed.
To claim that labor unions were NEVER needed, holding the position that human life has no value is a requirement.
I am opposed to the communist unions, sure, but I reject the ethical and moral wasteland in which this screed was conceived.. The early unions were about safety regulations as much as they were about wages.
Do no girbilists read history beyond what is required in college anymore?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.