fenderputy the Shady wrote:
My father is union. He works for Sasco (one of the largest electrical contractors in the US) under the electrical union, Local 11. Currently people pay out the *** for Sasco to do their jobs, because they KNOW union work is better then NON-UNION.
Are you positive about this? See. Cause I'd beg to differ. It seems more to me that people pay out the *** for Sasco to do their jobs because they are contractually obligated to do so, and don't have a choice, or the union will go on strike and shut them down.
If someone is willing to "pay out the ***" for your work, they'll do so whether you are a member of a union or not. The *only* purpose for a union is to get people to pay out the *** for work that the would otherwise not pay that much for. Why on earth do you think that unions have to strike and create contacts to force pay and benefits for their workers? If the work was really that valuable, the union would be unecessary.
Unions had a value back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, back when the issues were demanding worker safety and breaking the "company controlled" markets in some small towns (the old idea of owing your soul to the company store). With todays labor laws, the unions aren't needed for any of that stuff anymore. Worker saftey is managed by OSHA, not union demands. Overtime laws, fair market laws, and anti-trust laws have made the abuses that many companies did back then a thing of the past.
Unions haven't had to strike over any issue other then pay in something like 40 years. That should tell you something about their purpose today. It's not about workers "rights", it's about taking advantage of a monopoly of labor in an area to force pay and benefits at higher levels then the market would naturally provide for the labor. That's why they are a problem. They create an artificially high labor cost in industries saddled with union labor, in turn passing that cost on to everyone else. Additionally, they further reduce the competitiveness of those operations using union labor, increasing the likelyhood that those operations will end up being shut down rather then continue paying wages to their workers that are killing the bottom like of US businesses.
Unions aren't even good to those in the unions. Sure. The Union itself does fine, but the workers who are inevitably laid off when a factory is forced to close due to the high labor costs aren't exactly benefiting. They'd have been better off in the long run if they'd not been in a union, and had just been paid what the market could bear. They might have made a bit less money, but their jobs would be more secure and long term.