Opinion of Labour Unions By Party

[Cassius]

I don't really have an opinion of such as broad concept. There are both positive and negative aspects to them. However, speaking as a fellow who comes from a family with relatively little in the way of union membership (my mother and one of my grandparents, both teachers, were ATL members I believe, which, again I've heard, was a relatively moderate union back in the day anyway), I'd say their impact upon me is by and large scant, or if they do impact me then mildly negative.

[TNF]

On balance, labor unions are a net plus for society because the policy that benefits the average worker benefits everyone.

However, I think Democrats should look at the negative aspects of unions in practice too.  Some unions contribute to these bureaucratic labor systems where nobody can get fired, pensions sink public and corporate finances and corruption springs up.  I just think of how it is here in New York.  We have unions run by the Italian Mafia, unions that enforce blatant nepotism in hiring and blatant political corruption where politicians hand out pension bonuses right before elections.  And, there's a cost to it.  For example, if you want to build affordable housing in NYC, you can't use union labor.

Negative aspects like having a voice on the job, a bigger paycheck, and the right not to be arbitrarily fired?

[Goldwater]

Ask me 50 or so years ago, I'd tell you FO. Not today though.

How old are you?

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Generally Horrible Organizations.

Also, there's no 'u' in Labor, Mung Beans.

In English-UK, I believe there certainly is an un in Labour...

That's fine if you're English, but Mung Beans is an American, so it's nonsensical for him to type Labor with a 'u' added in.

I agree with the great socialist writer HP Lovecraft in preferring British spelling to that of America's.

Your personal preference is irrelevant. If you want to start spelling things like the British, you can file immigration papers and move over there in a few years. In the meantime, you can't just flush your own country down the toilet because we're not "progressive" enough for you.

It's also spelt Labour in Australia, except in our Labor Party.

Of course the correct British term is 'Trade Union'.

Same here in Oz.

[bedstuy]

On balance, labor unions are a net plus for society because the policy that benefits the average worker benefits everyone.

However, I think Democrats should look at the negative aspects of unions in practice too.  Some unions contribute to these bureaucratic labor systems where nobody can get fired, pensions sink public and corporate finances and corruption springs up.  I just think of how it is here in New York.  We have unions run by the Italian Mafia, unions that enforce blatant nepotism in hiring and blatant political corruption where politicians hand out pension bonuses right before elections.  And, there's a cost to it.  For example, if you want to build affordable housing in NYC, you can't use union labor.

Negative aspects like having a voice on the job, a bigger paycheck, and the right not to be arbitrarily fired?

No, those would be positive aspects.  If you're curious about knowing which aspects I consider negative, read the next few sentences where I explain what I mean. 

[Zioneer]

I think that Labor unions have positive and negative aspects. Positive are all the things the True Leftists have said in this thread (which I agree with), and negative is that unions can be co-opted by government and business corruption just as any other organization. Plus, it's worse when they don't defend workers rights because of corruption, as defending workers is the whole point of a union, as opposed to corporations or government agencies.

The good outweighs the bad though.

[TDAS04]

Option 1.

[Oak Hills]

On balance, labor unions are a net plus for society because the policy that benefits the average worker benefits everyone.

However, I think Democrats should look at the negative aspects of unions in practice too.  Some unions contribute to these bureaucratic labor systems where nobody can get fired, pensions sink public and corporate finances and corruption springs up.  I just think of how it is here in New York.  We have unions run by the Italian Mafia, unions that enforce blatant nepotism in hiring and blatant political corruption where politicians hand out pension bonuses right before elections.  And, there's a cost to it.  For example, if you want to build affordable housing in NYC, you can't use union labor.

Negative aspects like having a voice on the job, a bigger paycheck, and the right not to be arbitrarily fired?

Any type of organization can be corrupted. Indeed, I'd say every single large organization in existence has at least some corruption. There are no exceptions to this rule at all.

Anyway, Freedom Organizations by and large.

[TNF]

The most 'corrupt' labor union is still far and away better than the most honest capitalist enterprise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However, I think Democrats should look at the negative aspects of unions in practice too.  Some unions contribute to these bureaucratic labor systems where nobody can get fired, pensions sink public and corporate finances and corruption springs up.  I just think of how it is here in New York.  We have unions run by the Italian Mafia, unions that enforce blatant nepotism in hiring and blatant political corruption where politicians hand out pension bonuses right before elections.  And, there's a cost to it.  For example, if you want to build affordable housing in NYC, you can't use union labor.

Considering that very similar remarks can be made about the Democratic Party in NYC (and generally, actually), I suspect that the problem of corruption in American unions probably shouldn't be seen in isolation...

[AggregateDemand]

Labor unions are out of control. They are just groups of greedy people who don't like the market price for their services. Their impropriety wouldn't be such a big deal if they didn't also exploit the young by making benefits an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.

We don't have any real unions in the US.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Your first sentence and your last sentence appear to argue against each other.

In any case, I think you might find far greedier people elsewhere. Bankers, lawyers, and so on.

[DemPGH]

Option 1 of course, and since U.S. labor laws are so utterly weak, that unions are "no longer necessary" is simply untrue. I also agree that union corruption pales in comparison to big corporate corruption. Union corruption, I think, is often one of surreptitious cooperation with the company, and the company is part of that equation as well.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Lean freedom organizations.

I'd much rather see labour unions work to mend the wage gap than governments.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FOs but outdated. They are naturally declining with the market now and are being replaced as the main left wing force the urban gentile liberal coalition.

[AggregateDemand]

Your first sentence and your last sentence appear to argue against each other.

In any case, I think you might find far greedier people elsewhere. Bankers, lawyers, and so on.

American "labor unions" are out of control. The US doesn't have any real labor unions.

In the United States, unfettered greed is everywhere. Church. Unions. Corporate boardrooms. Welfare projects. Cities. Suburbs. Rural farms. Everyone does not practice unfettered money lust, but it can be found everywhere in abundance.

American unions have not protected jobs in the United States, and they've exploited their younger members to pay for largesse for older retirees. These allegations apply to almost any union, private or public; manufacturing or service sector. Very few are competently managed by people who have the workers and the country as their first priority.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

FO's, but could be improved: either adopt German style enforced meetings between management and unions or workers could enforce their rights through the establishment of mutually owned enterprises and co-ops.

[TNF]

FO's, but could be improved: either adopt German style enforced meetings between management and unions or workers could enforce their rights through the establishment of mutually owned enterprises and co-ops.

Mutually owned enterprises and co-ops won't survive in competition with cut-throat capitalists, I'm afraid. You can't have social ownership and capitalism. They cannot coexist.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

There are actually a few co-operative enterprises that exist and often perform as well as traditional business enterprises of the same size. Here's one of the more successful examples.

[TNF]

There are actually a few co-operative enterprises that exist and often perform as well as traditional business enterprises of the same size. Here's one of the more successful examples.

While this is undoubtedly true, the logic of the profit motive and the need for continuing accumulation will ultimately erode the democratic structures within these firm and transform them from worker-owned enterprises into regular capitalist enterprises, with the workers acting as the capitalists. A good example of that is the Mondragon cooperative, which is, iirc, now contracting out services(?) in order to remain competitive. I'm all for choosing coops where possible and building up a cooperative sector, but unless there's action on the part of these coops, acting in concert with organized labor and a left-wing counterhegemonic bloc, there's not going to be much safe space for them to exist, and any foothold they gain will ultimately be undermined by capitalism itself. There has to be a total victory over capitalism for these enterprises to become and remain the norm, I'm afraid.