Have unions outlived their purpose?

[nini2287]

What do you think?

[nclib]

Option 2.

[Jake]

Yes, unions were good for America through much of this century, but are now just a corrupt group of leaches who really hurt the workers they force to join their union.

[A18]

They suck, but it's not my place to ban them. That said, I would never join a union.

[opebo]

No, as a matter of fact their purpose - preventing starvation wages - is becoming more and more timely as we return to 19th century levels of inequality.

[nini2287]

I say not yet, but they were certainlly much more useful 100 years ago.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Much of the function of the unions has been turned over to the government.  Unions would certainly be stronger if those functions were reprivatized, but I’m undecided about whether their members would be better off because of it.

[John Dibble]

No. However, they need to be taken down a notch or two.

[Beet]

Unions have completely outlived their purpose since the 1940's. They are now the ugliest form of special interest group and should lose their legal protection.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. Of course not.
Having said that, Unions in the U.S do need to democratise more and reach out to different groups of workers, while acting faster against corrupt officials (the fact that there's less embezzeling in most unions than most corperations doesn't matter at all. People expect corperations to be crooked and they get a certain amount of leeway because of that. People are disapointed if union officials are crooked).
In addition, the structure of a lot of a lot of American Unions is very outdated (ie: craft unions) and that's something that needs changing.

They probably need better PR people as well... if there is one thing that the media is biased against it's unions. And most don't seem to realise this.

Basically a fair bit of internal reform is needed before they can get to where Unions in the U.K are.

[WalterMitty]

option 3 for me.

unions are criminal enterprises.

and, as ive said many times before, if union membership is so 'great', why not have a national right to work law and make union membership VOLUNTARY.

[opebo]

option 3 for me.

unions are criminal enterprises.

and, as ive said many times before, if union membership is so 'great', why not have a national right to work law and make union membership VOLUNTARY.

Because then they would have no power to increase wages, benefits, and worker safety - which is their function.  Without unions workers typically recieve very low wages and bad working conditions.

I would like a national law banning states from having right to work laws.

[WalterMitty]

option 3 for me.

unions are criminal enterprises.

and, as ive said many times before, if union membership is so 'great', why not have a national right to work law and make union membership VOLUNTARY.

Because then they would have no power to increase wages, benefits, and worker safety - which is their function.  Without unions workers typically recieve very low wages and bad working conditions.

I would like a national law banning states from having right to work laws.

unions would almost completely die out with a national right to work law.  only a very small percentage of workers actually want to be a member of a union.  most union members are there due to labor's extortion techniques.

opebo, you may be surprised to know that most workers are quite capable of thinking for themselves.  they dont have to be told what to think, who to vote for, what products to buy, where to buy them, what man to damn, and other such sulliness that unions do. 

and alos opebo, im sure youre quite aware of what happens when you artificially inflate wages.  the consumers end up paying the bill.  arent the workers that you care so deeply about consumers also?  dont you think that artifically inflating wages would just move what is left of american manufacturing jobs overseas?  how has detroit fared against foreign auto  competition?

[opebo]

unions would almost completely die out with a national right to work law.  only a very small percentage of workers actually want to be a member of a union.  most union members are there due to labor's extortion techniques.

Well of course they would die out with a 'right to work law', because the employers could simply replace union workers with scabs.  People want to be a member of a union that has power and can give them high wages.  Without the right to prevent hiring of non-union workers, a union has no power to increase wages.  The 'extortion' of which you speak created the middle class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does thinking for yourself have to do with it?  You can think about it all you want but without a union you're selling your labour into a buyers market, and will get low wages and bad conditions.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You think that high wages are what sunk detroit?  Japan has wages that equal American wages.  As for inflating prices of goods, I don't believe that would happen to any great extent.  Higher wages forces employers to be more efficient and create higher productivity.  Productivity grew at a faster rate during the days of union power and Keyensian redistribution (1945-1973):

As this last chart shows there was a blip up to levels similar to 1945-1973 during the very late 1990's.  But overall the rate has been much lower during supply side economics than Keyensian.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

unions would almost completely die out with a national right to work law.  only a very small percentage of workers actually want to be a member of a union.  most union members are there due to labor's extortion techniques.

Rubbish. Thing is, most anti-union laws aren't worth the paper they're printed on if the unions are clever about it.

[Bono]

Here in Portugal we have those laws and unions still have a lot of members.

[A18]

A national right to work law would be unconstitutional anyway.

[Nym90]

If joining a union wasn't mandatory, most people would choose not to, because they would realize that they could get many of the benefits of unionization without having to pay for them. The fact that unions exist in the first place increases the wages and living standards of those who aren't in unions. I think that's something that the anti-union people fail to recognize.

So sure, a lot of people would opt out of the union if they could; sort of like how if taxes were made voluntary, the great majority of people would choose not to pay them. Similar concept. Everyone would want to get the benefits without having to pay the expenses if they could get away with it.

[angus]

If joining a union wasn't mandatory, most people would choose not to, because they would realize that they could get many of the benefits of unionization without having to pay for them. The fact that unions exist in the first place increases the wages and living standards of those who aren't in unions. I think that's something that the anti-union people fail to recognize.

So sure, a lot of people would opt out of the union if they could; sort of like how if taxes were made voluntary, the great majority of people would choose not to pay them. Similar concept. Everyone would want to get the benefits without having to pay the expenses if they could get away with it.

sobering and well said.  still, the question hints at whether this mold fits as large a group as it did when they evolved, and if not, why shouldn't non-unionized, or "right-to-work" cottages exist alongside mandated membership shops?