Heard something interesting regarding the minimum wage increase. Basically said increasing minimum wage can lead to increased union dues, since you will see an uptick in wages across the board. So the party that has union support and is also pushing for min wage hike is really just putting more money in their pockets.
The largest impact of raising the minimum wage is exactly the opposite of it's intent. Low skilled, entry level, minimum wage workers go from the minimum to ZERO when they get laid off do to the increase of a businesses labor costs. Economics 101, for Gods sake!
Of course, in the liberal mind set, their goal, compassion, want, caring, whatever is all that matters. Results mean nothing to them. Example, Johnson's War on Poverty. Something like 20 TRILLION buck into it and about ZERO change in the poverty level. As a side benefit, they have managed to decimate the cornerstone of a society, the family unit.
Althogh the conventional wisdom of labor supply and demand may be "Econ 101", actual analyses are far more equivocal. However, what we're taught in freshman classes is often oversimplified. The science says the minimum wage actually has a limited impact on unemployment, if any.
One of the things I've found interesting with the Republican ascendency is their ability to convince people to vote against their economic interests. I'm in an income bracket where Republican policies have little impact on me. I'm not rich enough that I really profit from their policies. But if my taxes went up a bit it would have essentially no impact upon my life. On the other hand, the Ken Cuccinelli wing of the Republicans could have an impact on all of our lives.
I doubt any of us are rich enough to have Republican policies make a real difference in our lives. A more serious issue is that the Democrats are just as problematic with their Wall Street connections and lack of concern with privacy. But don't kid yourself that voting Republican helps. They're just as bad on most issues and they have an extra dollop of craziness (the Cuccinelli wing) on top of the issues that the Dems have.
I don't feel good about cheering the demise of the UAW. Unions did a lot of good in the early 20th century. In this case many workers were happy with VW. But can workers trust management to always treat them well?
I don't think it's an accident that believing the Earth is 6K years old, and believing in perfect stability of a pure market economy seem to go together. Finding stuff to believe in gets so complicated when you can't just ignore any actual evidence. A well designed boat has a low center of gravity, so it's naturally stable, but that doesn't mean it can't tip over. I wonder if all the Hoover-revivalist Tea Partiers dog paddle in the lake, waiting for their boat to flip itself back over. Like it did in the 1930's, our economic boat has flipped over, people don't have enough money to buy all the stuff their increased productivity allows them to produce. We need another New Deal, to tweak the economy and get the boat right-side up again. And that will probably include restoring a meaningful minimum wage.
Stats say that union members are now only a small percentage of the American national labour force and that number is inflated by a high percentage of union membership in public service employment.........PLUS, that percentage is in precipitous decline in the private sector.
Personally, I also consider lawyers, doctors, architects, teachers, professors, engineers, etc. to be union members as well. 'Professional Association' is just code for a closed-shop union in my books.
Lawyers in particular get pretty shirty with me when I refer to them as union members. I love needling lawyers.
Good points by zip and ilb, cogent and well-reasoned. Everybody else was venting some first class union hate. I don't know what you clowns are going to bitch about when union membership drops even further. Nearly all of the recovery since the collapse of 2008 has gone to the top one percent. They locate the plants in the South because of the vehement anti-union feelings there. Rednecks would rather work in a non-union plant, until the execs decide to move the plant to someplace else where they can exploit the labor force even more. How about Malaysia or Guatemala? Now THAT'S Econ 101.
I was a union member throughout my 42 worker career. We never went out on strike but were able to negotiate good salaries and working conditions.
For all you union haters out there just remember that if it wasn't for unions you non union workers would not be enjoying the benefits you have without them. They have forced all employers to offer good working conditions just to keep- the unions out.
I can agree with some of what you said, and I certainly understand the need of unions in the past. I think the problem with unions is that they are not all the same. As an example in a private concern, such as you were involved with, had to make a profit or disappear. So they had to work together to insure the continued existence of the company and the jobs it provided.
However, public sector unions are a different critter. Whereas a business has competition, there is none in the public sector. Also a private company has to make profit/income, or it will cease to exist. The public sector has no requirement to make a profit and has always had a never ending stream of income, IE: taxpayers.
This is where the disconnect occurs. The time has arisen where the payers are revolting against the payees. I heard a conversation about a fellow in a public sector union located in CA had a salary of $80,000 a year. He retired with a pension of $120,000. No idea if true, but it wouldn't surprise me. These public sector union contracts are driving many municipalities and state toward bankruptcy. Not a healthy environment for our country.
Anyway, time to get off the soapbox. Take care, my friend.
It never ceases to amaze me how often the virulent anti-union people forget one thing. Namely, that workers are consumers. What good does it do to make a product or sell a service if a smaller slice of the populace can afford it? Henry Ford recognized this truth by paying his workers a liveable wage so that they would in turn buy the cars coming off the assembly line. Has it not escaped anyones attention that the earnings stagnation (regression ~ last 5 years) of middle class USA since ~ 1980 has coincided with the decline of % workers that are unionized ?
As for the argument that unions are less relevant today than early 1900's: I can see where the rationalizing is coming from- "I'm not making poverty wages, so why do I need a union?" Did it occur to some of those folks that their salary wouldn't be where it is if not for unions raising the bar for compensation/benefits ? In a non-union environment, "abject poverty plus a nickel" would be the reference datum for "a good wage."
As for the argument that union wages destroy companies: How about subjecting company management to some critical scrutiny? I've seen several cases where unions at distressed companies agreed to concessions only to have company file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (In some cases, multiple times within a decade.) Substandard costs can't bail out substandard management, who made blunders( too much debt, wrong marketing or purchase decisions, etc) of such magnitude that even some workers working for no pay could erase. That is like a piss poor driver moaning about an increase in auto insurance premiums forcing him to sell his car and take the bus, when his getting in multiple car wrecks by driving drunk caused larger repair bills and insurance premiums.
.. Off soapbox, time to soak up some sun, and dream up some lawyer jokes for farmerart.
The CAW has been great for us, it's members buy houses, cottages, boats, cars, vacations, and they go out for dinner all the time. That kind of stuff fuels the economy a lot more than minimum wage earners, who use credit cards to do the same.
Why are unions smaller? The plants that had them are overseas now.
Plain and simple.
Of course there is a disconnect between what a worker can produce and what they can buy. So much shit is made outside their eco-system so to speak.
Well, China MUST be made a part of the world economy if we want to change things over there - I mean it was the same with the USSR! Don't you remember all the USSR shit over here? Oh you don't?
@Che -- I think you're the one making an assumption here. And there is no possible way your assumption can be correct.
This *was* a vote between VW and UAW. A major reason UAW lost is because the workers were basically happy. Maybe the pushback against unions in the area had an impact. Who knows? But there appears to have been a good relationship between management and labor in this case. That makes unionizing an uphill battle.
All I asked is whether labor can always count on a good relationship with management. I should think the answer is obvious. For anybody who thinks labor can always count on management shooting straight and playing fair...well, I've got the deed to this wonderful bridge that connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'll sell it to you cheap!
As I stated, a big difference between private and public sector unions. Example, a private company sucks at what they do, sell, whatever. They are soon gone at the choice of the general population, including those that are union members. A public sector union continues no matter how poor their product. Here's a good example to put in your pipe and smoke, public education!
The origins of cooperative labor groups negotiating better working conditions is not in dispute. Labor unions were once a wonderful thing for workers. In the USA that changed dramatically beginning in the 1930s and accelerating in the 1960s and 1970s. Unions failed to protect themselves from mob influences in the 30s and 40s and by the 60s union leadership in this country was corrupt in every national labor organization.
That criminal control was the beginning of distrust for unions, but certainly not the end. Union leadership became more dishonest as the national unions carefully separated from the mob. Union leaders in the 70s and 80s became more and more greedy. Particularly the AFL-CIO and the UAW pushed for greater and greater concessions from employers, repeatedly raised dues, increased employer paid "benefit" and pension costs - then spent the union windfalls on perks for union leaders and bonuses (reported and "less formal") for union bosses. Shortfalls in pension plans plague union balance sheets to this day.
The union worker in the 80s did see some improvement in wages, but little else, The increased costs forced many unionized companies to reduce staff and reduce hours. Eventually many union leaders were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but the criminal charges were too little, too late. Union leaders had killed the goose.
That history explains why so many people now dislike and distrust unions. But notably, NOT all unions were corrupt and not all union leaders were dishonest. Unions representing airline pilots, cabin crews and ground crews have been very good at representing their members in negotiations with some cooperating airlines and especially good at protecting jobs and pay in dealing with hostile airlines. Other unions also continue to do what the are supposed to do.
In Europe, companies have lived with socialist governments and unionized companies for so long the companies, like VW, have learned to deal with well run unions. In the US, company leaders and stockholders fear unions. That fear in not because US companies do not want to pay fair wages or offer reasonable benefits. Management and ownership fear unreasonable demands, not requested by their employees, but demanded by greedy union bosses unrelated to the local workers, demands that could force the business to close.
So Shadowcat, your experience is not uncommon but is not the same experience that others have had. And Farmerart, south of your border we do not fear organized workers but we hate corrupt union bosses who steal from companies and their own members. Minnow, I am not opposed to workers getting a fair wage, or even having a say in how they do their job - but I am strongly opposed to criminal organizations like the UAW or AFL-CIO having the power to dictate to the people who create the wealth we all benefit from.
Clubber, public sector unions are devious criminal organizations that should never have been allowed but now infect every state as well as federal employees. I worked in a federal agency in the 80s, when the union demanded a vote at that agency 97% on eligible employees voted AGAINST the union but, because small majorities favored unions in 3 of 137 locations, the NLRB certified the union as the sole employee representative for all non-management employees. If the US government stacks the deck for unions, then unions have an unfair advantage. In this country the federal government is seldom trusted and (now for good reason) the federal employee is rarely trusted. So unions get even more hate.
You left out that when government does stack the odds in favor of unions,it often translates into votes.
In the 80's and 90's I owned a construction company in the NY tri-state area all the way down to south Jersey.I employed 60 non-union workers and was constantly approached by union reps.I would very politely say no.
This is my experience with unions when I was the General Contractor:
Truckers Union-Not picking up dumpsters in a timely fashion,concrete and sheetrock delays.
Pipefitters Union-Each worker could only install 80 feet of pipe per day.
Electrical Union-You could not change a light bulb or plug in a power cord without a electrical worker doing it.
When I was a Sub-Contractor-
It was only slightly better,all I had to contend with was flattened tires,vandalized trucks and equipment,theft,cut power cords etc.
I had a friend that was a union electrician and got caught selling cocaine twice while working on a Bell Labs building and they couldn't fire him,he was assigned a "Non-Essential" job of changing light bulbs in the same building at a rate of $67/hr.
A question for Shadow.During the Reagan years,did you go on strike with the rest of the Air Traffic Controlers?If so,were you fired?
Lastly,I just feel unions are here to help few at the expence of many.
@Dallas-Great comments. Unions can be used for both good and bad. Just remember that before unions we had Lowell, Massachsetts and Sinclair's "The Jungle".
The ignorance of posters regarding economics is astounding and comes from a lack of common sense. The middle class is the engine that drives America. Not the poor, not the rich. All countries have poor and rich, the few successful ones have a middle class. What benefits the middle class is simply jobs. The lower the unemployment rate, the better it is for the middle class. If you look at unemployment, despite what the media says, its lower under Republicans. Bush had a max of 4% unemployment with a Republican Congress and 6% with a Democratic Congress. Obama, despite losing millions from the workforce which deflates the unemployment number is between 7-10%, yet people think he has done well for the middle class because of the stock market, which makes the rich richer.
Well, I guess we have all staked out our positions. Some better than others. Some with a head-scratching animus. I may disagree with some of you but I don't smear your name or try to mock you. No, I am not a blithering idiot. Nor are many others that share my views. And since none of you know me, you really don't know whether I know what I am talking about. I see the need for unions and organized labor. The fact that there has been corruption in the boardroom and in the union hierarchy speaks against corporations and unions alike. If we use that standard then we ought to run organized. . .religion out of town, eh? Or do you want to say that there has not been any corruption in any of our churches?
And Che, I have to snicker about your name and your virulent hatred for organized labor and your apologist stance for our one-percent friends. Not enough to bash you, but enough to snicker over the little ironies in life. Clubber, I respect your years of clubbing and fine reviews and words of wisdom on mongering. But we disagree here. And I respect you enough to not take a potshot at you. Evidently it is not reciprocal.
The unions have been nearly beaten into submission and these small skirmishes are fought on the fringes with union pop guns. Yet your anger is still directed at the Evil Empire.
"In the US company leaders and stockholders fear unions." (para 5)
"We do not fear organized workers". (para 6)
Which side of your mouth are you going to talk out of today, dallas 702 ?
In spite of those seemingly contradictory statements within one paragraph of each other, I very much get that you're anti-union.
Moving on, some quotes 2 paragraphs apart demonstrate some ignorance/bias on your part.
"Unions representing airline pilots, cabin crews, and ground crews have been very good at representing their members".... (para 4)
"criminal organizations like the UAW, or AFL-CIO".... (para 6)
d702, do you realize that the vast majority of US major airline workers unions (Alpa-pilots, AFA- cabin crews, and TWU- ground workers) are affiliated with AFL-CIO. You say that you're not opposed to workers getting a fair wage ( fair as in who determines what is fair ?). Yet neither yourself nor others have acknowledged the fact that union workers on average have better salary and benefits than comparable non-union workers. Nor has anyone answered zipmans fundamental question of whether management can be trusted to consider the workers best interests. By design, not with shareholders (public companies) and owner(s) interests in privately held companies being placed first.
I'm guessing what you really meant to say was that you don't mind workers being organized, provided that the organization they belong to doesn't have much teeth ( or organizational $$, political power/influence) to it.
There are good and bad business leadership and good and bad union leadership. In the end, you have a few people in charge who are probably looking out for themselves and not the company or workers.
I personally dislike Unions because I tend to prefer treating everyone as an individual rather than a group. I don't like the idea of having to join a group in order to work somewhere. What if I disagree with the Union's message or support for certain politicians?
Unions have done good things in the past for workers, and they still work hard for their members to have safe working environments. At the same time, they will often force a company that cannot afford it, to pay more and keep more people on...sometimes to the point of the destruction of the company.
Corporations have done good things for people as well. Let's not just throw them all into the same category and and say they are angels or devils. Some company leadership will scrimp and scrape every dollar they can even if it means dangerous working conditions for their employees. Some will complain about a lack of profits and then give themselves bonuses and golden parachute retirement plans.
This is kind of like bitching about Republicans and Democrats. Ultimately, the leadership of both groups could give a rats ass about us little people. Republicans want businesses to run without regulation but want to tell us about what we can morally do or not do with our bodies. Democrats want to regulate the crap out of business while letting everyone live the way they want (as long as you agree with them).
36 comments
Latest
Remember the defeat they received in Wisconsin.
Made sense to me.
Of course, in the liberal mind set, their goal, compassion, want, caring, whatever is all that matters. Results mean nothing to them. Example, Johnson's War on Poverty. Something like 20 TRILLION buck into it and about ZERO change in the poverty level. As a side benefit, they have managed to decimate the cornerstone of a society, the family unit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk…
(Includes link to the peer-reviewed publication)
One of the things I've found interesting with the Republican ascendency is their ability to convince people to vote against their economic interests. I'm in an income bracket where Republican policies have little impact on me. I'm not rich enough that I really profit from their policies. But if my taxes went up a bit it would have essentially no impact upon my life. On the other hand, the Ken Cuccinelli wing of the Republicans could have an impact on all of our lives.
I doubt any of us are rich enough to have Republican policies make a real difference in our lives. A more serious issue is that the Democrats are just as problematic with their Wall Street connections and lack of concern with privacy. But don't kid yourself that voting Republican helps. They're just as bad on most issues and they have an extra dollop of craziness (the Cuccinelli wing) on top of the issues that the Dems have.
I don't feel good about cheering the demise of the UAW. Unions did a lot of good in the early 20th century. In this case many workers were happy with VW. But can workers trust management to always treat them well?
Stats say that union members are now only a small percentage of the American national labour force and that number is inflated by a high percentage of union membership in public service employment.........PLUS, that percentage is in precipitous decline in the private sector.
Personally, I also consider lawyers, doctors, architects, teachers, professors, engineers, etc. to be union members as well. 'Professional Association' is just code for a closed-shop union in my books.
Lawyers in particular get pretty shirty with me when I refer to them as union members. I love needling lawyers.
After 7 yrs of employment in a unionized hospital, I was earning more twice the wage that I was after 20 yrs in a vehemently Anti-Union hospital.
Plus the other benefits such as medical insurance coverage was greatly better in the union shop.
Aptly named, IMHO.
For all you union haters out there just remember that if it wasn't for unions you non union workers would not be enjoying the benefits you have without them. They have forced all employers to offer good working conditions just to keep- the unions out.
I can agree with some of what you said, and I certainly understand the need of unions in the past. I think the problem with unions is that they are not all the same. As an example in a private concern, such as you were involved with, had to make a profit or disappear. So they had to work together to insure the continued existence of the company and the jobs it provided.
However, public sector unions are a different critter. Whereas a business has competition, there is none in the public sector. Also a private company has to make profit/income, or it will cease to exist. The public sector has no requirement to make a profit and has always had a never ending stream of income, IE: taxpayers.
This is where the disconnect occurs. The time has arisen where the payers are revolting against the payees. I heard a conversation about a fellow in a public sector union located in CA had a salary of $80,000 a year. He retired with a pension of $120,000. No idea if true, but it wouldn't surprise me. These public sector union contracts are driving many municipalities and state toward bankruptcy. Not a healthy environment for our country.
Anyway, time to get off the soapbox. Take care, my friend.
As for the argument that unions are less relevant today than early 1900's: I can see where the rationalizing is coming from- "I'm not making poverty wages, so why do I need a union?" Did it occur to some of those folks that their salary wouldn't be where it is if not for unions raising the bar for compensation/benefits ? In a non-union environment, "abject poverty plus a nickel" would be the reference datum for "a good wage."
As for the argument that union wages destroy companies: How about subjecting company management to some critical scrutiny? I've seen several cases where unions at distressed companies agreed to concessions only to have company file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (In some cases, multiple times within a decade.) Substandard costs can't bail out substandard management, who made blunders( too much debt, wrong marketing or purchase decisions, etc) of such magnitude that even some workers working for no pay could erase. That is like a piss poor driver moaning about an increase in auto insurance premiums forcing him to sell his car and take the bus, when his getting in multiple car wrecks by driving drunk caused larger repair bills and insurance premiums.
.. Off soapbox, time to soak up some sun, and dream up some lawyer jokes for farmerart.
Plain and simple.
Of course there is a disconnect between what a worker can produce and what they can buy. So much shit is made outside their eco-system so to speak.
Well, China MUST be made a part of the world economy if we want to change things over there - I mean it was the same with the USSR! Don't you remember all the USSR shit over here? Oh you don't?
This *was* a vote between VW and UAW. A major reason UAW lost is because the workers were basically happy. Maybe the pushback against unions in the area had an impact. Who knows? But there appears to have been a good relationship between management and labor in this case. That makes unionizing an uphill battle.
All I asked is whether labor can always count on a good relationship with management. I should think the answer is obvious. For anybody who thinks labor can always count on management shooting straight and playing fair...well, I've got the deed to this wonderful bridge that connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'll sell it to you cheap!
As I stated, a big difference between private and public sector unions. Example, a private company sucks at what they do, sell, whatever. They are soon gone at the choice of the general population, including those that are union members. A public sector union continues no matter how poor their product. Here's a good example to put in your pipe and smoke, public education!
That criminal control was the beginning of distrust for unions, but certainly not the end. Union leadership became more dishonest as the national unions carefully separated from the mob. Union leaders in the 70s and 80s became more and more greedy. Particularly the AFL-CIO and the UAW pushed for greater and greater concessions from employers, repeatedly raised dues, increased employer paid "benefit" and pension costs - then spent the union windfalls on perks for union leaders and bonuses (reported and "less formal") for union bosses. Shortfalls in pension plans plague union balance sheets to this day.
The union worker in the 80s did see some improvement in wages, but little else, The increased costs forced many unionized companies to reduce staff and reduce hours. Eventually many union leaders were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but the criminal charges were too little, too late. Union leaders had killed the goose.
That history explains why so many people now dislike and distrust unions. But notably, NOT all unions were corrupt and not all union leaders were dishonest. Unions representing airline pilots, cabin crews and ground crews have been very good at representing their members in negotiations with some cooperating airlines and especially good at protecting jobs and pay in dealing with hostile airlines. Other unions also continue to do what the are supposed to do.
In Europe, companies have lived with socialist governments and unionized companies for so long the companies, like VW, have learned to deal with well run unions. In the US, company leaders and stockholders fear unions. That fear in not because US companies do not want to pay fair wages or offer reasonable benefits. Management and ownership fear unreasonable demands, not requested by their employees, but demanded by greedy union bosses unrelated to the local workers, demands that could force the business to close.
So Shadowcat, your experience is not uncommon but is not the same experience that others have had. And Farmerart, south of your border we do not fear organized workers but we hate corrupt union bosses who steal from companies and their own members. Minnow, I am not opposed to workers getting a fair wage, or even having a say in how they do their job - but I am strongly opposed to criminal organizations like the UAW or AFL-CIO having the power to dictate to the people who create the wealth we all benefit from.
Clubber, public sector unions are devious criminal organizations that should never have been allowed but now infect every state as well as federal employees. I worked in a federal agency in the 80s, when the union demanded a vote at that agency 97% on eligible employees voted AGAINST the union but, because small majorities favored unions in 3 of 137 locations, the NLRB certified the union as the sole employee representative for all non-management employees. If the US government stacks the deck for unions, then unions have an unfair advantage. In this country the federal government is seldom trusted and (now for good reason) the federal employee is rarely trusted. So unions get even more hate.
Pretty good summation! Haven't seen you around much lately.
You left out that when government does stack the odds in favor of unions,it often translates into votes.
In the 80's and 90's I owned a construction company in the NY tri-state area all the way down to south Jersey.I employed 60 non-union workers and was constantly approached by union reps.I would very politely say no.
This is my experience with unions when I was the General Contractor:
Truckers Union-Not picking up dumpsters in a timely fashion,concrete and sheetrock delays.
Pipefitters Union-Each worker could only install 80 feet of pipe per day.
Electrical Union-You could not change a light bulb or plug in a power cord without a electrical worker doing it.
When I was a Sub-Contractor-
It was only slightly better,all I had to contend with was flattened tires,vandalized trucks and equipment,theft,cut power cords etc.
I had a friend that was a union electrician and got caught selling cocaine twice while working on a Bell Labs building and they couldn't fire him,he was assigned a "Non-Essential" job of changing light bulbs in the same building at a rate of $67/hr.
A question for Shadow.During the Reagan years,did you go on strike with the rest of the Air Traffic Controlers?If so,were you fired?
Lastly,I just feel unions are here to help few at the expence of many.
And Che, I have to snicker about your name and your virulent hatred for organized labor and your apologist stance for our one-percent friends. Not enough to bash you, but enough to snicker over the little ironies in life. Clubber, I respect your years of clubbing and fine reviews and words of wisdom on mongering. But we disagree here. And I respect you enough to not take a potshot at you. Evidently it is not reciprocal.
The unions have been nearly beaten into submission and these small skirmishes are fought on the fringes with union pop guns. Yet your anger is still directed at the Evil Empire.
"We do not fear organized workers". (para 6)
Which side of your mouth are you going to talk out of today, dallas 702 ?
In spite of those seemingly contradictory statements within one paragraph of each other, I very much get that you're anti-union.
Moving on, some quotes 2 paragraphs apart demonstrate some ignorance/bias on your part.
"Unions representing airline pilots, cabin crews, and ground crews have been very good at representing their members".... (para 4)
"criminal organizations like the UAW, or AFL-CIO".... (para 6)
d702, do you realize that the vast majority of US major airline workers unions (Alpa-pilots, AFA- cabin crews, and TWU- ground workers) are affiliated with AFL-CIO. You say that you're not opposed to workers getting a fair wage ( fair as in who determines what is fair ?). Yet neither yourself nor others have acknowledged the fact that union workers on average have better salary and benefits than comparable non-union workers. Nor has anyone answered zipmans fundamental question of whether management can be trusted to consider the workers best interests. By design, not with shareholders (public companies) and owner(s) interests in privately held companies being placed first.
I'm guessing what you really meant to say was that you don't mind workers being organized, provided that the organization they belong to doesn't have much teeth ( or organizational $$, political power/influence) to it.
The Fed is keeping the market afloat.
There are good and bad business leadership and good and bad union leadership. In the end, you have a few people in charge who are probably looking out for themselves and not the company or workers.
I personally dislike Unions because I tend to prefer treating everyone as an individual rather than a group. I don't like the idea of having to join a group in order to work somewhere. What if I disagree with the Union's message or support for certain politicians?
Unions have done good things in the past for workers, and they still work hard for their members to have safe working environments. At the same time, they will often force a company that cannot afford it, to pay more and keep more people on...sometimes to the point of the destruction of the company.
Corporations have done good things for people as well. Let's not just throw them all into the same category and and say they are angels or devils. Some company leadership will scrimp and scrape every dollar they can even if it means dangerous working conditions for their employees. Some will complain about a lack of profits and then give themselves bonuses and golden parachute retirement plans.
This is kind of like bitching about Republicans and Democrats. Ultimately, the leadership of both groups could give a rats ass about us little people. Republicans want businesses to run without regulation but want to tell us about what we can morally do or not do with our bodies. Democrats want to regulate the crap out of business while letting everyone live the way they want (as long as you agree with them).
Me, I'm none of the above.