It's hard for me to see the union's side here. Their pay and benefits seem pretty good. I'm sure there are aspects that aren't so good, but let's face facts. The Archie Bunker era when you could take a high school education and no particular skills, get trained on a steady low-risk semi-skilled job, and make a comfortable living with annual pay increases, full benefits and generous pension - is ending. The GM and Ford assembly-line workers are learning that, and I guess the MTA workers may learn that too.

So, the wages, benefits and conditions for the bulk of American working men and women is circling the drain, and unions should just get out of the way and let them get flushed?

And THAT students is a warped extrapolation:)

I wonder how New Yorkers are doing?

They must be torn between the major inconvienences caused by this illegal strike, and their liberal guilt for thinking badly of the poor, oppressed transit workers.

If history has taught us anything, it is that giving in to unreasonable demands just yields more unreasonable demands.

Are you trying to pick a fight with me, Len?

I was expanding what a previous poster said, which was true. It used to be that most workers in most jobs could make a decent living. And mom could stay at home with the kiddies. Home ownership and all that.

Now, we do see to be seeing some real serious downward pressure on "real" wages. It has been active for thirty or forty years now, and seems to have more force now than ever. So yeah, I think "real" wages are falling and will continue to fall.

Unions have trouble just facing their members and saying "Brothers and sisters, we're already earning too much. Your real wages are falling and will continue to fall, and you should probably just forget about retiring at 55, forget about avoiding paying your medical insurance, forget about pay raises. We should just accept what management has been kind enough to offer us."

And these same discussions are going on everywhere, whenever contract negotiations occur. So no, I don't think it's an extrapolation or exageration or anything like that. I think we're getting our asses kicked in manufacturing, and the good jobs and good earnings are going away. No real doubt about it. Our living standards are sky-high compared to the rest of the world, and with economies going global like they are, the only way to avoid a significant lowering of our living standards here would be to engage in vigorous trade protectionism which wouldn't solve the problem anyway but might forestall it a bit. Actually there is a way. Education. But we're not going to figure that out until it's almost too late.

Yep, real wages and benefits are falling. And you guys apparently think unions should just step out of the way and let that happen?

The commercial ditch is littered with managers who thought they would just play some hardball with Labor. Sometimes they get away with it. And sometimes it doesn't go as well as the manager was hoping.

Dude, I wanna retire at 35. Can I strike on that?

Is that a euphamism, or a real ditch where organized labor dumps the bodies of irritating managers?

As long as unions are a) adversarial, b) short-sighted, c) care only about their present members, not all workers, and most importantly d) looking backwards at how things were as opposed to how things are and how they will be, they will do damage to companies, our economy and THEMSELVES.

If they really wanted to save jobs and ensure that the employer would be around to actually pay their silly pensions, they would spend less time posturing and demanding and more time working with management to make the most productive use of labor resources.

If I walked off of my job today because I didn't like conditions, I would be passing my replacement on the way out.

Tell me Supe, why do union members deserve such great privelages that the rest of us don't enjoy?

It is a euphamism or analogy, of course. The rest of your remarks are.....(don't tell anybody I said this).....spot on.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Unions get their strength from membership. Solidarity. Workers combine their clout. This way, it is a fair fight. Otherwise, like in your situation, you bargain individually with the employer. That means you have little clout and your employer has it all. Fact is, your employer could probably (could certainly, if you were in Washington State) fire you for no reason. In the absence of a union, the employer has ALL the control. Hire and fire at will. Give or take away wages. Whatever they feel like.

Remember the movie The Right Stuff? Remember when John Glenn's wife refused to speak on camera with the Vice President, Lyndon Johnson? Lyndon called Houston. The manager of the Mercury program applied pressure to Mrs. Glenn's husband. He checked with his wife, and told the manager that if the wife did not want to speak with VP Johnson, then that's the way it is. He backed her. Then the manager said "Well, you are scheduled to be the next astronaut to go up, but if you're not inclined to play ball with us, then we might just pass you up and pick someone else. The other six Mercury astronauts were listening to this and chose this moment to step forward and as the manager "Yeah, who ya gonna get?"

Yay!

Another union-bashing thread.

I was getting so tired of all the dem-bashing threads.

We need a good religion-bashing thread to keep balance.

We know how/why collective bargaining works Sup.

In this example there are tens of thousands of qualified people saying "Right here, me!!!!!!" when the union asks " Yea, who you gonna get?"

So they should get collectively replaced.

Hell, I'd do it. They make more than me and get MUCH better benefits.

Oh why can't we all just get along!

Damn freedom of speech:mad:

Don't look at me, I am an anti-union union member. There is nothing inherently bad about unions. I have seen them do too many things here in California in the last few years to the detriment of everyone in the state, which benefits some of their members. The California Nursing Association springs to mind, as does the State Employee union. CalPers screwed all their members in Sacramento last January, just because Sutter Hospital would not force all their employees into unions. Sort of hurt me at first, but eventually turned out pretty good when all those people were effectively left without healthcare insurance and had to pay me cash. Maybe unions are not so bad after all

Tobra, you raise a good point.

Becoming unionized is a one-time decision. A decision that once made, cannot be reversed (at least in Illinois, it is effectively illegal to de-unionize). It affects workers for generations, whether or not they want to be in the union--the choice was made for them. (In Illinois, all workers are required to join the union in a union shop.) Further, unions in this area are known for strong-arming their way into a shop--and the laws support them. The union will come in and basically tell all the workers they are getting screwed (regardless of actual conditions). In Illinois, employers are barred by law from saying or doing anything to stop their shop from unionizing. Their hands are tied. Once a shop is unionized, the employer no longer has any control over hiring, firing, and pay.

Me too. I see picket lines all the time around my bldg. and wonder why people don't get fired for not going to work. I'm in commissioned sales, so I just don't understand union demands in general.

I produce - I get paid. I don't produce - I get fired.

You are telling a story here that runs contrary to everything I know about unionism in America. The NLRB has become so employer-friendly that there is virtually NOTHING they can do that will get them convicted of a ULP. Look at Wal-Mart. Some of the stuff they pull regularly to evade unionism is BLATANTLY an Unfair Labor Practice. They'll close an entire store, or an entire line of products or services just to get rid of the folks that are about to become union. So no, I don't believe the NLRB makes decisions for Illinois that are polar opposites to the crap decisions they make everywhere else.

Also, you make it sound like unionism is not only a lifetime commitment with no possibility of reversal, but that your decision to be union will result in a loss of freedom of choice for your children and grandchildren. Get real. I know you are an angry sort of fellow but get real. Unionism is mostly regulated by FEDERAL law, not state law. Decertification is an option anywhere in America. Washington State is a "union shop" state where you must join a union in order to work for a particular employer. If you're taking this situation and pretending that there is no freedom of choice, or that your grandchildren will be bound by your choices, and employers are powerless against unions.....then you might be convincing some fools, but you won't be doing it honestly and you won't be fooling people who have information or know how to get it.

Name one shop that has de-unionized anywhere in this country.

Going out of business does not count.

While Supe is searching for a shop that de-unionized I figure i'd give an update....

Judge decides on a $1M per day fine. The union attorneys will appeal on the grounds that it's excessive. Let's see, the city stands to lose $300-$400 million in revenue per day....Excessive? I think not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/nyc_transit_strike_24;_ylt=AnpGGFczw_7gYlGrs5qevvQ p.gMB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Court Fines NYC Transit Strikers $1M a Day

"The city is functioning, and functioning well considering the severe circumstances," the mayor said. The TWU "shamefully decided they don't care about the people they work for, and they have no respect for the law. Their leadership thuggishly turned its back on the New York City. This strike is costing us."