Replies

"I really don't fault most of the workers as they are just doing what we all do, maximize our earning potential"

I agree with all of the points in your post except this one.

I've seen this exact same argument regarding unions before and given it a lot of thought. SOME workers are paid more than they otherwise would be under these union contracts, but others - the ones that you really want to work for you are likely underpaid (until they fall into apathy and again become overpaid)

There is only one hope for unionism, in my opinion - and that is to evolve into more of a true trade guild - one in which PRODUCTIVITY is guaranteed to any employer that hires them. This would mean that unions would have no incentive to keep slackers. It would also mean that they would be incentivized to keep and train promising workers, and jettison those that are a liability.

This would open the door to creative and mutually rewarding owner/manager/employee partnerships. Members of this type of union would be paid a premium and be worth every penny.

Today, individual initiative, creativity, and excellence is discouraged under union control ("Don't kill the job!").

When the best are not allowed to even work at union shops, much less, prosper outside the bounds of a union contract, it's an assault on individual freedom and frankly, a threat to our economic wellbeing as a country.

I don't fault the poor guy who is forced to work in a union shop to make a living for his family......as long as he doesn't turn into a bitter union thug in the end.

You wrote an excellent post.

I agree with you for the most part. It is very difficult to find an optimum point of balance for worker security and productivity within the framework of the union as almost all egalitarian societies, which is what a union is, devolve downward to the lowest common denominator. As someone who has worked in a union shop in the past, I understand the mentality of workers there. Even workers who otherwise would try to excel were encouraged to work down to the least productive level instead of up to their maximum potential so as not to make the rest of the workers look bad. What is even more astounding is that the management in that shop was also geared towards the minimum worker levels of productivity. One could suggest ways to improve productivity, and after management would meet with the union leadership, the suggestions would be rejected. It was disheartening. I too would like to see unions evolve into the types of trade guilds you speak of, but I don't see that happening. The current labor situation in America is poisoned after years, maybe even decades, of corruption and malfeasance by union officials. I fear that the only way for businesses to escape the tyranny of unions in non-right-to-work states is through bankruptcy reorganization. One would think that union officials would recognize the dangerous game they are playing and the suicidal nature of their prevailing methods of negotiations. If it was me, I would be far more pragmatic when dealing with companies who have the intrinsic right to "take their ball and go home" in an effort to keep my union brothers and sisters employed even at lesser rates of compensation. I reiterate, a smaller part of a pie is better than no pie at all. I have enjoyed this exchange with you. It is encouraging to be able to converse without the attendant I'm right/you're wrong type of exchange. Thank you.