Posted on 02/21/2009 10:47:00 AM PST by Zanton
Unions are naturally and inherently tyrannical, collectivist, criminal, corrupt, parasitic organizations. They're based on the theory and marxist-leninist "ideal" of what could be called predatory authoritarian communism for otherwise free-agent labor and naturally liberated workers.
No proper, self-respecting, freedom-loving employee should ever belong to a union at his job. No proper, self-respecting, freedom-loving employer should ever allow a union at his company. Unions destroy efficiency, competitiveness, prosperity, success -- and labor-management harmony. They create a kind of company civil war. Ultimately, unions kill business.
Even employees who think of joining a union, or who sympathize with the concept of unionism, should be summarily and energetically fired. Unionism as a socio-economic ideal is a deadly plague which severely weakens and impoverishes every worker and labor market it contaminates. Unions are a cancer which severely debilitate or destroy every company they infect.
Death to unions and unionism!
J. Edgar Hoover felt the same way. I can’t remember the book, but wrote essentially the same thing you’re saying.
I concur.
I just remembered the title of the Hoover book. It was Masters of Deceit. It was the story of Communism in America, up to the 1950s. Infiltrating and controlling the labor unions were a central big part of the Communist juggernaut.
I’m sorry, but your sentiment is flat wrong.
In a free society and free market economy, people can band together (freely) for their mutual benefit. If people who work in a given industry wish to band together to negotiate better wages and working conditions by refusing to offer their labor for a time, this is a natural part of freedom.
Labor unions *per se* are a fine thing.
The problem arises when labor unions cease to be labor unions and attempt to use state coercion to become monopoly guilds, to enforce settlements on employers, or to demand state-support of employers who have foolishly negotiated unsupportable deals so that they don’t lose their jobs as a result of their greed. Classically, a union which did this sort of thing, especially attempting gain a state-granted monopoly, was called a ‘trade union’.
So long a labor unions operate within the free-market, rather than trying to coopt the power of the state to coerce benefits for their members (or more likely, really, for the union bosses) they are actually worthy of support.
Alas, most American labor unions have long since become trade unions, and are run by statists.
On the other hand, just as a monopoly corporation (or state-enterprise) is a bad thing, so a monopoly union is a bad thing. (I make an exception in the case of a monopsonist employer—for example the Polish Communist state in the 1980’s—in which case a monopoly union like Solidarnosc is very much a good thing.) Unions should be subject to anti-trust laws just like corporations.
You said — “No proper, self-respecting, freedom-loving employee should ever belong to a union at his job. No proper, self-respecting, freedom-loving employer should ever allow a union at his company. Unions destroy efficiency, competitiveness, prosperity, success — and labor-management harmony. They create a kind of company civil war. Ultimately, unions kill business.”
Well, I have to give another perspective here. Many people (like I was many years ago, when I was first married), have to look for jobs to pay for the bills for their families. Now, I went around looking for one job or another (in my younger days), and one place I applied at hired me. I was very happy to be hired, as the previous job was construction and sporadic and the job had finished and I was laid off.
I was told by the employer that to work there, I needed to go down to the union hall and sign up and after that, there was no problem with me continuing to work there.
Now, the employer didn’t necessarily embrace the unions as something that he would have desired in the first place, but having them there, he was able to get along well with them and he was very good to his employees, too. He had been in business since he was a younger man, and his son eventually took over the business and is now running it (the father having died a number of years ago).
In the process of working there, there was never any “union problems” nor was there any destroying of efficiency in that workplace. We all worked hard and we were appreciated by the employer. There was no company civil war going on and the people worked well together in that workplace. It was almost like being in a family, in a way (of course, it was “work” too... LOL...).
Now, I left there after many years, having to do so, because of medical problems, which would not allow me to do some of the heavy work there, and because of doctor’s orders.
What I didn’t really pay attention to, way back in my younger days, has now come back to be a benefit to me now. I have a pension plan (which I did know about, but didn’t pay that much attention to it, at the time) that I was able to start up and receive now. That pension plan was one of the items of the bargaining unit of the union, of which I had no part or was ever involved it in — as it was all in place before I ever got there.
Now, the other like-businesses in the area who do not have any union contract, do not have any pension benefits at all. They don’t exist to this day (and I’m talking about 40 years ago). And so, this one part of my pension (from this source) is very beneficial to me, at this present time. I’m grateful to have that and I’m glad that was included in the benefits. I do know that if I had worked for someone else without the contract, then I would not have that particular benefit today. But, when I went in there to work, originally, I never gave that any thought at all — and I could have just as easily gone to work for another company as that one. But, it just turned out that I worked for them. And thus, today, I have that particular benefit, which is very good for me. I cannot complain about that.
As for that employer and his business, the son is doing very well today, having been very successful over the years, and after taking over from his father and continuing to own the business. They are still under union contract and that has not prevented him from being very successful and being recognized as one of the premiere businesses in that area, in his field of work. So, it does not seem to have been a problem and a detriment to him and/or his business and certainly not to his employees over the course of about 75 or 80 years in the business. The union is a national one, being very large and is a significant one, too.
I’m just using generalities here, because I’m not wanting to identify the particular business and/or the owner — and am talking from my *own* personal experience and what it has meant to me and how I’ve seen it work out. It’s not the bad deal — across the board — that many make it out to be, and I say that from direct and personal experience and from seeing the employer’s direct and personal experience.
—
Furthermore, using another example, in the family, was my dad. He worked for a major company/production facility in the state of Texas for many years, retiring after 30 years of continuous work there. He was also a young man, having a family and needing a good job and was directed to the company by someone else. He was hired on his merits and he got the job and stayed with the company (a major one in Texas) for those 30 years. It was a mixed shop — union and non-union. You could do that. But, my dad did not join when he started. He did not join over the years either. In any case, he was a good worker, someone the management could depend upon and in some cases, he was called on to cross through picket lines (when they happened over the course of 30 years) to come to work, which he did. He would come in at any time, fill in for anyone, and the management (which was non-union, of course) could depend upon him for anything.
But, in his later years, as he was getting to retirement age, his manager took him aside and advised that for *his best interests* — he should join the union in his later years. He not only encouraged him, but *strongly urged* him to do so. He said that, because without that membership, he would get none of the retirement benefits that those others were getting who were working at the company. So, he did join, according to his management’s advice. They were very appreciative of his work over the years, and they did not want to see him “out” of the benefits that many of the others would get, automatically. And that’s why they urged him to join up with the union. That was from the actual management of the company, itself.
When he retired, he got a wonderful pension, medical benefits and was doing quite well for his 30 years on the job with the company. If he had not joined, he would have missed out on his pension and his medical benefits, having only to depend on the government for some of that. Instead, he made out quite well — and I have to say it was *primarily* because of the *management’s advice* that he did so. Otherwise, I really don’t think he would have joined, at all.
So, those are two stories which are from direct experience, and I say they have made a positive difference in two people’s lives and it has been no problems for the companies involved, because both of them are very successful to this day.
The right of free association that allows businesses to incorporate and political parties to form also applies to trade guilds and labor unions. It’s all checks and balances. Problems happen when one side or the other tries to put their thumb on the scale.
In what way are they "inherently tyrannical, criminal, corrupt and/or parasitical"? Please explain.
No proper, self-respecting, freedom-loving employee should ever belong to a union at his job. No proper, self-respecting, freedom-loving employer should ever allow a union at his company.
Personal opinion, to which you are entitled.
Unions destroy efficiency, competitiveness, prosperity, success -- and labor-management harmony. They create a kind of company civil war. Ultimately, unions kill business.
Please describe this "civil war" and explain why it is the union's fault and not management's. Please explain your "reasoning" on how unions kill business, by negotiating a contract with the employer, when upper-management negotiate a contract with the board of directors for golden parachutes, etc., and this doesn't "kill" a business.
Even employees who think of joining a union, or who sympathize with the concept of unionism, should be summarily and energetically fired.
Whoa! So much for freedom. What kind of "free" country do you want to live in, pal, free for me, but not for thee?
Unionism as a socio-economic ideal is a deadly plague which severely weakens and impoverishes every worker and labor market it contaminates. Unions are a cancer which severely debilitate or destroy every company they infect.
So negotiating a work contract is a plague. How do you intend to stop upper-management types from negotiating contracts with the board of directors? How is that different?
Hourly workers are, and always have been, looked upon as replacable cogs in a giant wheel of the corporate industry. They don't get to decide what the company will pay them. Without negotiation, they are unable to get a decent wage (the old "Why should I pay you $10 an hour, when I can hire the next guy for $5 an hour?". And if you think that's OK, then why don't they do that with management? Why pay top dollar to VP's etc.? Why not hire someone at less expense to the company?).
Labor unions *per se* are a fine thing.
The problem arises when labor unions cease to be labor unions and attempt to use state coercion to become monopoly guilds, to enforce settlements on employers, or to demand state-support of employers who have foolishly negotiated unsupportable deals so that they don’t lose their jobs as a result of their greed. Classically, a union which did this sort of thing, especially attempting gain a state-granted monopoly, was called a ‘trade union’.
I agree. My husband had a union job for 40 years...he was not a thug, just a normal guy doing honest work. He used to vote Democrat (when he bothered to vote), because that's what his family did and that was what was supported at work. When we married (22 years now!) he started voting Republican even though he knew they hated him.
When he started the job, he was young and single and didn't put much thought into his retirement. He had to retire earlier than he planned after his bout with pancreatic cancer and we are very grateful for his retirement. There are some good things about unions but that does not include union bosses!!
I just wasted a lot of time on a thread started by a troll.
Unions suck, but they should be legal. If you and a bunch of others want to negotiate as a group, that should be your privilege.
Needless to say, if your boss wants to fire you, or some of your bunch, or your whole bunch for being organized as a union, that should be fine too.
If your skills are good, but you’re underpaid (like some of the Machinists that I know), then a union might work to your benefit. Obviously, if you sweep floors, you may want to think a bit harder about joining a union.
I’ve seen positives and negatives in my hotel business career spanning 40 years, some as a union member, some as management. But what sticks in my mind the most is that when I started in San Francisco, a union city, in the mid 60s my hotel, one of the best in the world, boasted 2 1/2 employees per room. When I retired the employee per room mix was about 3/4 employee per room. Almost 1,000 positions disappeared over the period of 40 years I was there and this is just one hotel of many. Unions not only cost jobs but the working conditions suffered as well for both management and hourly workers as stress and workloads increased. The focus in the business became labor oriented rather than guest service oriented which increasingly suffered as work rules dictated operational decisions rather than allowing for the most efficient path to better guest service.
Reader David — I think you’re mostly right. But just as free people have a ~right~ to form (labor) unions, so too they have a ~right~ to form (business) cartels. But both phenomena are naturally evil, and should be fought tooth and nail, IMHO. They both seem to be a species of monopoly and enslavement.
Zan’
Some of that communist control of the labor unions was part of the CIO(A) push to take over smaller individual unions and consolidate the power in the CIO(A). (It was the CIOA before it joined with the AFL.
The CIO organizers would come in and accuse the present union members of being communists and take over the plant. I guess the CIO thought that being socialists was better than being communist, or maybe they just didn’t care.
Star Traveler — Many thanks for those two detailed stories! But I wonder if you’re telling the tales completely. Even if so, I wonder if there’s more to the stories.
You don’t get something for nothing. I don’t see how those unions were cost-free to the companies. Wages ~must~ have been depressed by all those “free” benefits.
Unions also infantize people. Individuals need to learn self-responsibility and to prepare for retirement. They need to learn how to create ~their own~ pension and medical insurance plans. This is better and cheaper in the long run for society and the individual, IMHO.
Zan’
Bob, national unions do not work for the benefit of the individual worker, the workers are like serfs that the unions contract out. The unions exist for the benefit of the elite union power structure.
All you have to do is take a look at what unions have done to the steel industry and are about to do to the auto industry. It doesn’t benefit the worker if the unions drive the industry out of business.
I have had some very personal experiences with union thuggery. My opinions come from first hand experience.
Jeffc — People almost universally believe unions raise wages. But that’s a myth. Wages are ultimately determined by efficiency and productivity — which unions destroy.
Much of current management practice is wrong too. No surprise there. “Golden parachutes,” “poison pills,” “greenmail,” yearly mega-bonuses for execs, cozy board members and CEOs (hiring and firing, and voting each others’ pay), etc. are all profoundly wrong. Some of it is criminal and financially fraudulent on the face of it.
BobL — good points.
Much of current management practice is wrong too. No surprise there. “Golden parachutes,” “poison pills,” “greenmail,” yearly mega-bonuses for execs, cozy board members and CEOs (hiring and firing, and voting each others’ pay), etc. are all profoundly wrong. Some of it is criminal and financially fraudulent on the face of it.
I agree 100%. Middle management, where I was, fare even worse, as they have no union "protection" and are considered, with disdain, as the "juniors" and "go-fers" to the top brass.
Unions used to offer one of the best things - job protection - which is what most people really would like to have. They also got people things that the top brass gave themselves, but no one else, i.e. vacations, sick days, health coverage, pensions.
I find it amusing when CEO's, etc. run a company into the ground, dump the employees, jump ship with a golden parachute, and then act surprised when others complain about it. But such is their philosophy.
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.