Unions

... may be more convoluted than the question...

First... My point of view may not reflect the points of view of what Republicans (i.e. the party), little 'r' republicans (not belonging to the party but believe in the Constitutional Representative Republic itself), or Conservatives as a whole may believe...

I've never been a big fan of unions as a whole. There was a time in American history where they were absolutely needed due the monstrously unfair labor practices that were in effect at the time and as such I wholly supported that endeavor. However, today those labor practices are ILLEGAL. And the notion that a union is still needed today is a stretch in my view. Why? See the last statement about fair labor practices, unions had a great hand in bringing to fruition these laws. Safety considerations were improved in my view due to Union efforts. In my view, the whole point was to eliminate their need for them in the first place by these very accomplishments.

Unfortunately today, many unions are nothing more than organized thuggery, using the law to bash a business they target into their view of compliance. Or usurping from a business its ability to regulate its own employee staff. General Motors comes to mind. Where the joke was GM was a health care and retirement plan that just happened to make cars. This "joke" was due to the bashing of the UAW into agreeing to every more increasing "benefits" that go well beyond what may be deserved for a given job. Do you think its right much less SMART for a company to agree to pay 22% of its operating budget to pensioners who get near full salary for contributing nothing to the company? GM should have been allowed to fail completely. Democrats bailed out the company... a wholly UNCONSTITUTIONAL act.. in order to bail out the unions. The union drove it into the ground... nothing else. There is only so much a job is worth... there is a dollar figure that can be placed on ANY job based on the return that job delivers. As much as we all would like to say we're that important to warrant high pay, it almost never is the case.

Another example of union bashing its way into the front door of a business was the fiasco at the Dana Manufacturing plant in Albion, Indiana.... just this past March (see here Card Check Process Used by Union Organizers Ignites Fury at Indiana Plant) The UAW used thug tactics to harass the employees into signing these cards. So much so they even harassed these people at their homes. Does that sound like fairness or even polite behavior?

There have been examples l've heard of unions through their ever increasing demands, inevitably killing their golden goose, by forcing the business to close... what does that do for the poor workers... puts them on the street, what does that do for the union? They lose a few bucks in dues... what do they care?

Business and labor have a balancing act they work to achieve. If a given business doesn't pay enough for a person's labor, that person can take his skills elsewhere. It happens all the time in non-union situations. Take cars for instance... there was a time we only had the "Big Three", and yes... the unions were able to secure safer working conditions as well as decent pay. But today, is their really a need for unions at the automakers given that there are now manufacturers other than the "Big Three"... Toyota for instance, is one of the few auto manufacturers to be a NON-union shop, and the UAW have had absolutely NO luck in gaining ground there... why? The climate of the company. They make a bit less than a UAW worker does, but their benefits and company loyalty are enormous. Where does a GM or Chrysler workers loyalty lie? With the Union.. to heck with the guy that cuts the pay check. The perception of big business is probably skewed so much by the propaganda laid out by the unions (which just so happens gets parroted by Democrats) that much of what is said doesn't fit what the perceived crime may be and in the process, the good that unions have done in the past has been reduced to nothing more than a legal shakedown... how does Jesse Jackson put it? "Shake the money tree"..

The point is, the rank and file members are just regular schmoes like you and me who work hard in order to make a living... the LEADERSHIP of these unions is the problem, and many of the clowns are shining examples of the Peter Principle just by virtue of their very behavior. The leadership embraces the Democrat Party for the simple reason that they get what they want from Government, more regulation for Unions to gain ground. Its about the "handout" mentality. Republicans (at least they used to be) were for less government, and a free market, and "right to work"... which doesn't sit well with Unions... and frankly, I think there are a few in the Union leadership, that have forged this relationship with Democrats not to further workers, but to line their own pockets and grow the union... which means more money for them. But what does that achieve... higher prices for everyone else, these costs have to be passed on somewhere, but in a "global economy" what happens when the cost of manufacturing a unionized product exceeds what the market can bear or pay? The business either goes out of business, or the outsource to China to make it cheaper in order to compete... I guess it can be said that unions are just bad for business, and by an extension bad for the economy as a whole... at least today they are given what has been happening.

Unions are a Socialist tool for controlling the masses of workers and by proxy the companies they work for... trickle up poverty seems to fit here.. they fit well into the Democrat Party who is really just a Socialist party with the wrong label. Any person who believes in Rugged Individualism really doesn't fit well in the Union world... and frankly... Union workers or leaders don't want to here how much they can succeed as an individual by their hard work to achieve the American Dream... they want to know how much they can get for the least amount of effort, and who they can get it from... that's how Democrats buy union votes and that is a sea change in how work ethics used to be vs. what is today.

Just my two cents... though cost adjusted to comply with Obamanomics... whew... negative numbers...