Skip to main content

Every once in a while a knuckle-headed Conservative will fall off the wagon and start blabbering about how bad unions are... Since Conservatives are today's equivalent of yesteryear's Communists, and since the more they talk (as did those late-to-the -party communists), the more the real truth emerges about their horrid ideal for America, it is my sincere wish that they keep it up.

However, just to make sure that not all conversation is one way, I wanted to give everyone a pat on the back who is Union, and thank them, by reminding them just of the powerful role they play...  When facts are on the table, the only way one can really be against unions in general, is if one shoots themselves up with heroin and looses all contact with reality ... Today, you really got to be "on something" if you are anti-union.... For all facts in the real world, point in the opposite direction...

First, let us dispel the mentality that unions force people to be in them.... Once past that rhetorical device, one realizes there are no "forced unions" and therefore there can be no issue of  "worker's choice" regarding union participation.

 Or put in layman's terms,  both forming, and disbanding a union operation, ARE the worker's choice...

As everyone knows,  (my goodness, I hope everyone at least knows)  it takes a majority of workers to form a union. Likewise as everyone knows, it takes a majority of workers to opt out of a union, should they find that union membership really doesn't "do it" for them.
Workers have plenty of choices.  They can A) choose to make their shop a union. They can B) choose to undo their shop from being a union.  They can C) individually choose to work there under existing  union shop arrangements.  They can D) individually choose not to work there under existing union shop arrangements.

The argument that if a shop is union that workers cannot choose is bogus.  It is based solely on the principle or belief that a union has to cater to the whim of every prospective employee.  In today's corporate world, would we expect Bank of America to have to cater to the whim of every single employee?  I wish.. huh?   So the entire argument behind "right to work" laws are about the  employer's rights and the hirer's rights... as in their right to be able to hire someone willing to work on the cheap, instead of what was called for in the contract he signed with the union....

Worker's rights have never changed... if workers don't like it, they have always had the right to quit.  They are not being forced to do anything.  They have worker's choice... The union laws don't make unions compulsory; they merely prevent free-riding, whereby workers could get the benefits of a union contract without paying for it. ..  Would a corporation like Bank of America  keep free riders on their payroll who were getting paid and doing nothing?  I wish, huh?..

Most employers do prefer the consistency of having contracts over that of having strikes which are very expensive and are not penciled into the long term plan. Even employers are supportive of having closed shops, because only that provides the consistency they need and makes planning more accurate.

However, in attempting to close down unions in America, conservatives have stirred the ire of the American people.... "No matter their warts, unions ultimately reflect their members: typical Americans just trying to earn a decent income, support their families, and (hopefully) retire with some security, in an economy which rewards the rich and powerful more than ever before.."

Unions represent America. After all, none of us really identify with the CEO making $1,000,000 an hour.  If he doubles his salary, it does nothing for us...  if he doubles his salary and we are the ones paying for it in lower wages, that does affect us.  Unions are the only defense America's people have.
Wage gains have been small, strikes are historically rare, and even much-maligned public sector contracts have been rolled back substantially. In such a lopsided context, it’s simply impossible to convince most voters that unions are really Public Enemy Number One..

All those of us making less than $1,000,000 annually, innately understand that if the only institutional voice speaking for working class priorities is silenced, then the whole social contract will become even more tattered in the years ahead. Unions, to their credit, effectively emphasized their broader social impacts in their responses to ridiculous conservative fabrications of reality.

Every attempt to destroy unions, whether in the public or private sector, is now viewed as a ploy by the rich in trying to take what does not belong to them, to make themselves even richer at our expense....
 America can see.  It sees conservatives as mean spirited harbingers of middle class poverty.  Most of us are close to it's doorstep now.

America can see.  It can see our mother's and father's hard negotiated benefits which they thought would one day help their children, get pulled back, and back, and back. Health benefits, pensions, insurance, all those things their parents chose to take in lieu of more salary, are now being clutched back into the hands of those who at one point in our parent's past, had to grudgingly fork them over... .

America can see.  Conservatives are mean spirited, hateful, selfish, brutal, and self-serving.  America can see.

Their anti-union views have pissed off so many moderate conservatives, who do see the benefits of being able to stand up to ones boss when he is wrong.  Conservatives blatantly offend labor unions and their families, by equating their representation with that of organized crime when the actual real criminal to society is the CEO running our economy into the ground. ...
I hope extreme Conservatives speak up all the louder.  For every time they open their mouth, America again realizes that Conservatives do not speak for the 99% of us... They may sometimes fool us with a quick turn of phrase.  
But we've lived with them long enough, to know, that what they propose, and who they are, and what damage they will do to both the middle class and America... was not accurately reflected upon their original application to us for employment.
It's past time to fire Conservatives, for lying on their application...
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Union construction workers (8+ / 0-)

    voluntarily assess themselves a percentage of their own wages, to pay for extensive, detailed apprenticeship training for young workers in the trades.

    Meanwhile, for-profit trade schools exist by ripping off federal scholarship aid.

    Which is the better example of conservative self-help that doesn't cost taxpayers money?

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 09:41:55 AM PST

    •  OPCMIA!! (5+ / 0-)

      Went to OUR Apprentice building for Update Training, Fantastic seeing all of the Equipment available to our Future Cement Masons!! I ask this question of those opposed to Org Labor. Many GOP have spoken out of getting rid of a MIN. Wage Law, Many NON Union Companies Pay at or Near the Prevailing Union Wage to avoid having a Union formed in the shop etc. Now IF those 2 were gone, What would dictate your Wage, What You think you should get or what the Employer dictates your going to get? Until Non Union Working People understand the Influence of Union Wages and WHY they are even getting Paid what they are, Until that simple point is Messaged in a way for them to grasp, It is Foolish for them to think Business would continue to Pay what they are IF Labor Org's and a Min. Wage were no longer in effect.  

  •  Kavips, union advocates need to frame this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bearsguy, Neuroptimalian


    Diary quoted:

    First, let us dispel the mentality that unions force people to be in them.... Once past that rhetorical device, one realizes there are no "forced unions" and therefore there can be no issue of  "worker's choice" regarding union participation.
    When a company has a contract with a union that requires employees either be union members paying dues, or pay a fee to the union for representation, it does not come across as honest to say employees are not forced to join the union.

    While it may be technically true that a person paying a fee for representation is not a member of the union, most reasonable people see this a the person being de facto forced to join the union.

    The other interpretation that because a majority of employees voted for a union, workers are not forced to join is not honest, as workers who voted against the union are forced to either quit, join the union or pay a representation fee.  Again, reasonable people see this as forcing individual workers to join the union.

    When language like the above quoted section is used, union advocates lose credibility and appear dishonest further hurting the union brand.

    A better approach would be to be more accurate but still positive about the union.  Describe the situation as a majority of workers choosing union representation where all employees are represented by the union and all employees pay the union for their services, and all employees are free to chose full union membership or only union representation.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:45:57 AM PST

    •  The messaging!! (0+ / 0-)

      That is the KEY and for whatever reason doesn't get Translated in a easy to understand manner. Another Point that People cant seem to grasp, Labor supports the Political Candidate on their Favorable LABOR stance, Not their overall View of issue's. It's that simple, But escapes the masses!!

      •  Unions strongly linking themselves to Democrats (0+ / 0-)

        works where likely workers for union work overwhelmingly support Democrats.  It works against them where there is a high rate they will support Republicans or oppose policies of Democrats.

        I can imagine a VW worker who doesn't believe in undocumented immigrants becoming citizens, who thinks abortion has become too common, opposes marriage equality, wants to send her child to a charter school, etc. not voting for UAW because the UAW is politically active in opposition to her beliefs.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:45:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is hard for a union (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Santa Susanna Kid

          to ask and be part of a political party that says, I'm for destroying unions, I'm for destroying minimum wage, I'm for destroying  the middle class safety net, I'm for destroying Social Security and the middle class too.  I'm for privatized everything to where we are king, and no one is allowed to question us lining our pockets, or our policies. .

          How can any conscionable union support a party like that?  I would venture their questionable allegiance to Democrats comes by default.

          Of course what you say is true about morals, but those minority views lose ground every single day.  There is now a new generation of workers, who doesn't care about immigration, about gays, about abortion.  But they really care about their paycheck..

          Time to write off the conservative dinosaurs.  The comet has hit, and their time is coming.  Time to start protecting the tiny mammals who determine the future.

          •  An alternative would be a non-political union (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The best hope for unions in right to work states may be being independent of today's mainstream unions, and limiting their activities to employer-employee issues at the particular company the union represents workers.  

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 12:29:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  next step is absolutely right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bearsguy, Santa Susanna Kid

      But so were those who said the trickle down economics would not work, because investing money back into the economy for minimal returns was too time consuming for the rich, and instead, they would prefer to gamble it away on markets...

      Being right is not always the way to win.  Being right in a certain time an place is.  The right to work argument is flawed for exactly why I said.

      My argument as you say, only appears wrong, when it is framed from the perspective of the 1% or employer.

      It boils down to this.  Employees who don't want a union but are in the minority.... We are discussing the part, where it is "not fair to them".  

      if one extends that argument to the losers of the Obamacare vote; Obamacare is not fair to them.

      If one extends that argument to the losers of the 2012 election,  higher taxes are not fair to them.

      If one extends that argument to ones corporation, where over your objections, they raise your deductible on your health plan... You say it is not fair to you...

      In each of those instances, you have a choice, very similar to the choice a loser in an union election has...  That choice is simple.  you can accept the outcome, or you can go elsewhere....

      You have that choice.  You may choose not to exercise it because a) you don't want to go to Paraguay, b) you don't want to pack up and move to Canada, c) you don't want to be unemployed and start over, d) you could choose to quit your job because you don't want to work in a union shop...

      The only reason the last one  has any play, is because there are greedy perpetrators trying to kill unionization who take each of these union shop examples, and say... "boo hoo, it's not fair... Look, he has to work in a union shop and he didn't vote for the union... Boo, hoo, hoo,... Unions are unfair.  Little billy should be allowed to work and keep his money... Bad unions. Bad.."

      That is the only reason.  

      Again, I agree with you. You are dead on in how it is perceived by very wicked people who may have a megaphone amped up a bit louder than tnose saying the opposite message...

      But. the time for those lies to get passed over unchallenged is long gone.  The problem is inside their heads. The problem is those people fed only one line, that they hold that truth to be self evident.

      There is no immorality or shame, in exposing them to the reality of how things really are... And they really are that if a worker doesn't want to work in a union, he can quit, just as if he really didn't want to work for Bank of America, he could quit.  

      Workers have a choice.  And all of America has a choice.  Keep unions and get a cut from corporate America more in line with what we deserve, such as the NFL, and NHL demand of their fat cat owners...   Or turn our freedom completely over to our bosses and become their slaves.

      Again, you were absolutely right in what you said, but I'm saying it only half of the message.  The reality is that what I said, is absolutely true.  

      Thanks for reading all the way down, btw.

  •  Negotiating without a union... (0+ / 0-)

    is like the Godfather offering you a deal you can't refuse.

    Workers enable a corporation to make money. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would never be able to move production out of their garages without hiring others to help with the work.
    So. it stands to reason that workers should be able to negotiate their fair share of the wealth the company creates. No One is saying they should have an equal share, just a fair share.
    This is what employers don't like about unions; the ability of employees to negotiate with the boss. They would rather run the company like little tin-pot dictators.

    For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    by Grey Fedora on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:04:35 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site