Michigan Votes Forum

You people just dont 'get it', do you!!! No more public service unions~!!

Maybe you didn't notice the thousands of protesters in Madison, WI recently in support of public service unions. This bill should pass.

First off: Collective Bargaining is not a right! Secondly, if an amendment can be added to the constitution, why can it not be repealed? I say no way to public employee unions. They have no one to "bargain" against except for the democratic politicians that they elected to office. Does that sound fair to anyone? These public unions think of the taxpayer as a bottomless pit of money and don't care if the well runs dry so long as they get theirs. This is cruel, vicious and greedy

 Well said, pjsolarz. Wonder how much Whitmer got to sponsor that piece of trash. Notice it does not say "the right NOT to bargain with unions"  Just another freedom Democrats want to take away. Notice the two new bills to increase taxes are also Democrat sponsored. It's never about government spending too much, it's because we aren't taxed enough or don't pay enough tribute to unions.

Way to go! Lets drive all the businesses out of Michigan. Then how will you pay your tribute to unions? 

 How about a constitutional amendment to make Michigan a Right To Work state? Screw the unions.

How about not screwing unions, and the working men and women of Michigan. How about letting workers organize and bargain with their employers for a decent wage and working conditions.

 If the unions are so smart, why don't they form corporations and start producing products or something other then people dependent on unions. Let them try and stay in business and make a profit when they have to deal wiith their own kind, live by their own rules and compete in the free market. Michigan would be a good place to start.

Unions don't exist to make a product or a profit, they exist to represent workers. They have taken on many partnerships over the years with their employers, sometimes to the point of buying the company. But their primary purpose is to give the worker a collective voice. Companies form trade organizations to give themselves more influence. Workers need that right also.

Michigan was a great place to start, for the UAW, Ford, GM, Chrysler and many other companies.. It can still be a great place to start for many companies, and workers, if we work together. Requiring employers to bargain with duly formed unions assures workers get a piece of the pie.

 Forced unionism is another form of monopoly.  Workers should be allowed without card check to join a union freely and bargain with their employer on that basis.  By stealing the union dues of people who do not want to join the union to use for political purposes, unions are no better than the Mafia running a racket - a labor racket.  Just look at the Wisconsin state house after the Union protests were held.  I do not think using the auto industry as your example of the good unionism brings is wise when the car makers really making money are located in right to work states.  Forced unionism steals a worker's freedom to choose.

Forced unionism doesn't exist. If a person wants to work where there is no union, he should apply there. If he applies where a union has been chosen by a majority of the workers to represent them, he knows that beforehand. His choice concerning union membership should be made then.

Apparently you haven't kept up on the progress the US based auto makers are making. They are all making money. GM is now poised to regain the no. 1 spot from Toyota.

 AMEN!!!!

 You forgot to mention that it is because of increased sales in China. Also forgot to say that we tax payers are still on the hook for over 26 billion and if the Govt sold it today we would take a 12 billion dollar loss. Your idea of making money is lacking something .

GM borrowed 6.7 billion from the government, paid it back, with interest, 5 years early. The government invested another 2.1 billion in prefered stock, and bought 60.8% of the company in equity. The government will sell off their portion gradually, as the stock price increases, as it is now doing. True, they may not get back our total investment. But the alternative, letting GM fail, would have cost the country, and the taxpayers much more in lost jobs and therefore lost tax revenue. Not to mention the personal hardships it would have  caused for millions of people working in and supplying GM.

GM has had a presence in China for 20 years or more. That countries economic boom is bound to benefit GM. I consider that one of the few times GM management had enough foresight to make a good decision.

I didn't forget either one of these points. Maybe your idea of making money is a wee bit narrow.

 Spoken like a true union man, When the Goverment bailed out not bought 60.8% of GM there was no equity and the sock price is not increasing it is falling like a rock. I realize that with my narrow idea of making money.

If you think GM had no equity, you really don't know much about GM. Chevrolet just had their best quarter ever, selling 1.1 million vehicles.

 Selling and making a profit are two different things. Sales do not equal equity.

Correct. Auto plants, assembly lines, machinery, market share etc. doequal equity.

 They're riding the tsunami wave.

Wrong.  Unions are in business to stay in business.  Their primary purpose is to keep union officials in their lifestyle.  The product they claim to sell is "representation".  And unions are run by people just a unethical and unconcerned with workers as any corporation out there.  

Answer me this -- if unioniism is so awesome is every union staff person in Michigan working under their own union contract?  How about Democratic Party staffers?  

Unions are nothing but labor cartels, more often than not run by the Mob.  When it comes to their own staff people they wipe their behinds with the NLRA.  Hypocrisy at it's finest.  Read "Solidarity for Sale" by Robert Fitch.  

Wrong, unions are a collection of workers with a commodity to sell, their labor. Speaking in one voice gives them more influence. This is what frightens people like you. Demonizing their leadership is a petty and devious attempt to blunt their influence. Business has their organizations to promulgate their interest, it is only fair labor should have theirs. The hypocrisy lies in promoting the superiority of business over labor. For a fair and equitable economy, the tension between labor and business needs to be on an equal footing. For this to happen, employers need to be required to bargain with labor unions.

Read "Solidarity for Sale" by Robert Fitch.  

I will ask again -- what percentage of union locals in Michigan have staff unions?  How can there be even one union staff out there not working under a collective bargaining agreement? 

One can toss around the myths and empty rhetoric surrounding labor unions or discuss the day to day realities of them.  Unions are before anything else businesses with cash flow,  assets, overhead, facilities to maintain, pension obligations and payrolls to meet.  They have leaders and staff persons who depend upon the salary and benefits they receive from the union and millions in dues dollars pass through the average union local in a year.  And, like any business, on the day to day in every union office out there, the paramount objective is to somehow stay in business.  

Unions sell a product -- representation.  Fewer and fewer American workers find the need for third party representation, at least from exisiting contemporary unions.  (I would argue that unions are also doing a lousy job of updating their product, marketing it and standing behind it.)  In some respects, today's unions are the victims of their own past successes -- employers today are far more conscious of the working conditions that once drove mass unionization and the most successful businesses out there practice positive employee relations.  We also have hundreds of laws that now regulate those things the unions of fifty years ago had to bargain for.

Therefore every union out there (with a few exceptions) is a failing business with a shrinking customer bases as government regulations and better business practices render unions unnecessary.   Skilled workers in high demand are finding they are better able to represent themselves and unskilled workers can see their peers are more often taken advantage of by their unions than benefitted by them. 

So union leaders are desperate to somehow gain new members, if only to stop the hemorraging, and the only power they have left is to turn to the government to, essentially, bail them out with pieces of legislation like this one.  

So, your conclusion is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Robert Fitch wasn't opposed to unions, he was opposed to union corruption. I'm sure you must be opposed to corruption in business as well, but I'm also certain you don't want to end the capitalistic system we have in this country because a few busnesses are corrupt.

The day to day realities of what has resulted from unionization is better wages, better healthcare, better safety rules, and a better life overall for both union and non union workers of this state and country. That is not a myth, that is reality. To think now that workers don't need unions to deal with business is absurd. Are you suggesting workers  merely trust employers to do the right thing? Are you assuring us business won't return to the sweat shop and unsafe working conditions which spurred union activity if given the chance? The mining industry is a good example of what business will do and not do when union activity is squelched. Are you also suggesting workers trust government, which is influenced heavily by corporate contributions and lobbying, to provide the laws needed to protect their interest and safety? You must be joking.

Unions have seen their membership numbers plummet. Some is a result of their own success in gaining workers a better life, and some is a result of a concentrated effort by big business to destroy unions through political action. Workers have the right to petition their government, collectively through unions, as much as business does. Legislation like this keeps the playing field level.

I hope you are as vehement in condemnation of corruption in business as you are in union corruption. Both exist, and should be exposed.

If you want your question answered, look it up. I suspect you already know the answer. I see no revelance in the answer to this discussion. Union staff have every right to join a union as any other group of workers.

Yes, I am suggesting workers trust thier employers and work together to address problems in the workplace without the interference of a third party.  

I do not see all employers as evil.  To the contrary, in my experience all but a small minority of businesses want their workforce to be stable and happy if for no other reason than a stable happy workforce is better for the bottom line.  Now, do all employers have the tools and skill set to well manage their workforce?  No, but the problem is generally ignorance, not malice. 

Unions are in the business of creating division in the workplace, inserting a wedge between workers and management, and thrive on promoting dissatisfaction with one's job.  No matter how much a unionized worker is paid it's never enough, right? I used to organize and train organizers so I know -- it's what unions do when organizing -- ferret out some dissatisfaction with the job and then agitate the worker around it.  If a worker doesn't have major issues with the job the union will convince him or her that he should and that the boss can't ever be trusted to address those issues through anything but threats and force.  

Yes I trust employers to treat their people well because I see it all the time.  And the largest political contributors out there are unions.

Open Secrets and the Center for Responsive Politics have compiled a list of the top 140 political donors in federal politics since 1989.  Of the top ten donors five are unions — AFSCME (3), IBEW (7), NEA (8), Laborers (9) and Teamsters (10). The top spot belongs to ActBlue, the Obama netroot money raiser.  AT&T comes in second, followed by Goldman Sachs (5) and the American Association for Justice (6) (personal injury lawyers who donate 90% to Democrats).

Of the next fifteen, seven are unions — Carpenters (11), SEIU (12), AFT (13), CWA (14), UAW (17), Machinists (19) and the UFCW (21).  Emily’s List, with 99% of its donations going to Democrats, comes in 25th.  Thirteen additional unions come in ahead of Koch Industries in 83rd place, Walmart at 89th and AIG at 100th.   The Club for Growth came in 78th and Bank of America, another frequent target of Big Labor, came in at 38th on the list. Together, the twenty-nine unions in the top donor list contributed $602M over ten years, with 95% going to Democrats.  (Businesses tend to split their docation more evenly, about 35/65 Democrats/Republicans)

most importantly -- these figures do not include non-cash donations of manpower, mail, equipment and facilities on and off the books or funds filtered through front organizations like America Votes and ACORN which likely dwarf cash contributions.  The figures above are only straight up cash compaign contributions.  Most unions spends hundreds of millions in staff hours and overhead campaigning for candidates under the guise of "member organizing" and conduct aggressive GOTV campaigns for Democrats that again are recorded as "member organizing".  They lend out their massive phone bank facilities and union halls for free to political and "independent" GOTV operations.  They even fly members and staff to other states for campaigns, costs that are not reflected in the numbers above.

No corporation out there sends its staff members to knock doors for political candidates.  If they did liberal heads would explode.  The notion that businesses own politicians, especially state politicians and Democrats of any kind, is a myth perpetrated by the left to discredit the will of the people when they vote for Republican and conservative candidates.  

And remember -- no union out there that I'm aware of actually asks it's members through a popular vote whom the union should endorse or work for in any election.  That decision is made by union leadership and then foist upon the membership through a variety of conceits like carefully selected "member political committees" and executive boards that have a funny way of agreeing with union presidents 100% of the time.  

gypsy:

So, your conclusion is to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

No.  Just take the dead baby off life support.  Today's unions don't meet the needs of today's workers.  If they did, people would be busting down their doors to get into a union. 

The baby isn't dead, just sleeping. Today's unions are suffering the results of their success in elevating workers incomes and well being.

Of course some workers don't think they need a union. Their companies pay them comparable to union earned wages to keep them content. But how long will that last? When enough workers are without a union, and the wage structure deteriorates to pre-union days, like we see happening now, workers will demand their fair share of the pie. As union membership has steadily declined since 1967, so too has the middle class’s share of national income, as the super-rich have taken a larger share of national income than at any time since the 1920's.

It is only a matter of time before the baby wakes from her nap, and will require feeding.

I would suggest to anyone reading this thread to go to opensecrets.org and read about what they have to say when comparing business and labor donations to political interest.

These are their words: "The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1."

Anyone interested in a more sophisticated analysis of the decline of unionism should check out the writings of Adam Ozimek over on Modeled Behavior.  He makes a compelling case, backed with the stats, that unions cannot thrive in a truly competitive economy.  

Union rhetoric has held sway over the media for so long some of those memes have become akin to common knowledge, like the notion that unions created the middle class.  Private sector unionism has been on a steady decline since the 1960's with the legalization of public sector organizing picking up the slack for a couple decades.  Back in the hay day of private sector unionism the US unionized workers had little competition here or abroad -- the world economy was still recovering and rebuilding after WWII and within our borders the labor supply was limited by race and gender discrimination as well as strictly enforced immigration policies.  In other words, a shortage of white men made it relatively easy for unions to bargain hard for their labor.  It wasn't the power of unions it was limited competition that gave union workers the lifestyle they enjoyed at the time.  Unionists only road the wave.  

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Verdana; color: #a8011c}

A really desperate attempt at rewriting history. Union rhetoric has hardly held sway over the media. That sounds eerily like the cry of some right wing politician lambasting the "left wing media", while Fox news is owned and operated as a wing of the Republican party. Private sector unionism has been and is in decline because of it's success, and because of a concerted effort by big business to buy politicians and mute the voice of organized labor.

To imply that unionism thrived because of racism is dishonest, and frankly atrocious. Martin Luther King went to his death fighting for the rights of union labor, and union labor fought side by side with civil rights activist. Such a blatant attempt at revisionist history is appalling.

If you are implying that competition with workers in repressive and low wage countries like China is good for the American worker, you are delusional.

I'm not implying anything or revising anything.  Discrimination in hiring (and union admission) was and still is a sad fact.  The UAW was one of the more progressive unions out there and stood up for civil rights early. (as far as unions are concerned) OF course, a significant percentage of the UAW already was African American in 1960 because auto manufacturers had been hiring AAs for some time and the UAW contracts covered everyone in the plant not just the trades.  You might want to brush up on your UAW history, however, on how African Americans, while the majority in a given factory, were effectively barred from stewardship and union leadership until they led their own internal rebellion within the UAW in the 1950s.  Other private sector unions were far from as progressive as the UAW, and remember I was discussing private sector unionism.  (MLK was most deeply involved in public sector organizing)

Unionism thrived in that era because white American males had a non-competitive labor environment for several reasons: much of the world was still rebuilding after WWII or yet to be fully developed; within American borders we were far more strict about immigration; women and minorities were excluded from the skilled workforce or ghettoized into certain select professions; a significant percentage of American males were lost or disabled in WWII and Korea or still serving in the military.  Unions were thus able to aggressively organize because workers were more aggressive on the job in general -- their labor was in high demand, there was a labor shortage.  And businesses could sustain higher and higher wages because they had no real competition overseas.

Now, whether we like it or not, American businesses and workers are in direct competition with workers around the world.  Is that "good" for the American worker?  Well, no, but apparently American consumers are loving it because they are scooping up cheap foreign made goods of every kind.  It's not that the evil corporations are unwiling to pay a "living wage", it's that American consumers are unwilling to pay for goods made by higher paid American workers.  

As for the decline of unionism, again, there's a list of possible reasons and theories on that and the answer is no doubt much more complex than "big business bought the politicians."  Even most union defenders would cite mismanagement and corruption within unions as at least part of the problem as well as the disconnect between union leadership and the rank and file.  Stronger labor laws and a competitive world economy are also factors to consider.  But at the end of the day American workers simply don't want a union as much as they once did.  When given the opportunity, they simply don't see the need for or the benefits of third party representation and/or don't trust today's unions to deliver on their promises.  

Racism has been, and as you accurately note, still is endemic to our society. But for you to chastise unions for their sins while giving business a relatively clean bill of health is disingenuous, and inaccurate. I will give you credit for pointing out that the UAW has been very progressive in this regard. I am familiar with UAW history, and therefore quite proud of their accomplishments in regards to equality of opportunity for all.

You seem to start your history of unions in the period following WWII. May I remind you the struggle between labor and business goes much farther back than the late 1940's. One of the primary reasons unions and labor laws gained strength during this period was because of the exploitation by business of workers pre-WWII. Lack of world wide competition and a shortage of labor gave them an advantage, but was not the driving force for workers to organize. Wanting a fair slice of the pie they had fought and died for was. You seem to ignore the fact that America was virtually the only market for the goods American workers produced. Manufacturers realized, following the example of Henry Ford, that a strong middle class was their market. They needed us as much as we needed jobs, therefore were more open to paying workers more. Money, not charity, was and is their motivation. They still had to be dragged hand and foot to the table to provide safe working conditions, decent hours, and fair treatment for their employees.

I'll agree when looking for reasons for the decline of unionism, "big business bought the politicians" is not the only one, but it is one, and an important one. The influence of money in our political system has been insidious, and the biggest source of that money is business. Mismanagement and corruption in unions and business needs to be ferreted out and prosecuted when discovered, but because of human nature, will always be with us. In my opinion, union's successes in gaining workers a comfortable life has been the biggest reason unions have declined in membership, followed closely by the easy access by business to cheap and compliant labor around the world, and a more desperate work force here because of it. Unions need to, and are adapting to this new environment. That doesn't change the fact workers need a voice, and unions are still the best structure to do that. Calling unions a "third party" in regards to labor and business is a misconception business likes to use. Unions are the workers speaking in a collective voice. There are only two voices, workers and business, in the conversation. With a union, the workers voice can be as loud as the companies.

 Very good post BarbaraBrown.

gypsy:

Racism has been, and as you accurately note, still is endemic to our society. But for you to chastise unions for their sins while giving business a relatively clean bill of health is disingenuous, and inaccurate.

No chatisement -- unions in general were no more or less racist and sexist than any other American institutions (in general) of the day. I'm only saying racism and sexism limited the labor pool for skilled workers and contributed to a labor shortage that fed demands higher wages and benefits.  

You seem to start your history of unions in the period following WWII. May I remind you the struggle between labor and business goes much farther back than the late 1940's. One of the primary reasons unions and labor laws gained strength during this period was because of the exploitation by business of workers pre-WWII.

Yes, and teachers and parents once routinely beat children, doctors smoked in their examining rooms and cops shot first and asked questions later.  What's your point?  As a society we have evolved.  Across the board we are a more just, equitable, less brutal and more civil society.  And business are no different in that regard because they are run by real honest to God people, not fictionalized monsters.  A hundred years ago there was no such thing as "human resources."  Companies now invest large amounts of capital in training and retaining their workforce and the business sector now leads the way in devoloping innovative methods for measuring and improving job satisfaction if only because it's good business for a whole host of reasons -- lower hiring and training costs, experienced more productive workers, less theft and malingering, better communications, innovation and customer service.  

Lack of world wide competition and a shortage of labor gave them an advantage, but was not the driving force for workers to organize. Wanting a fair slice of the pie they had fought and died for was. You seem to ignore the fact that America was virtually the only market for the goods American workers produced.

Bull. Post WWII Japan and all of Europe needed to be rebuilt with American steel, machinery, equipment and hard goods.  We also shipped a significant percentage of agricultural products and partially processed materials of all sorts overseas. And in our own markets there was next to no competition from foreign manufacturers for the American consumer's dollar.  Lack of competition and labor shortages made it possible for workers to organize because their employers wouldn't be driven out of business by foreign competitors if they gave in to union extortion for higher wages.  

Calling unions a "third party" in regards to labor and business is a misconception business likes to use. Unions are the workers speaking in a collective voice. There are only two voices, workers and business, in the conversation. With a union, the workers voice can be as loud as the companies.

When a worker becomes unionized they legally lose the right to speak directly to their employer on matters of wages and working conditions.  They are legally bound to representation by a third party, a separate entity, a labor union.  That labor union is neither owned by or directly controlled by its rank and file members.  (Go ahead and try to kick a union out of a unionized workplace)  The union is controlled by union leadership and an international constitution over which the average unionized worker has little if any control.  In general, decisions are made for unionized workers by union leaders who then impose those decisions on the rank and file.  Union communication departments then churn out propaganda that paints the picture of union members controlling their own fate and speaking "collectively".  But the facts are the union rep, as the legal agent of the union, is, in general, completely free to completely bypass the membership in all dealings with the employer.  Behind closed doors there are only two voices, the employer's and the union leader's.  (who only very rarely was elected in a truly democratic manner)

BarbaraBrown:

What I'm saying is racism and sexism limited the labor pool for skilled workers and contributed to a labor shortage.  

Your opinion, for which you offer no proof whatsoever. Maybe because there isn't any.

BarbaraBrown:

Across the board we are a more just, equitable, less brutal and more civil society.

And the reason for that is evolution? It had nothing to do with people fighting for their civil and economic rights? It just happened? We didn't need a MLK or Civil Rights Act or labor laws or laws to protect children and protect citizens? Surely you jest. We are a more equitable, less brutal and civil society because we've had to work at it and fight for it. And if we don't keep up the fight, we will surely revert to a less equitable, more brutal, and less civil society. I am not so naive as to think if we let business just be business it will always be just and equitable with it's employees. I'm quite certain you aren't either. Business has one goal, and that is to make money. Nothing wrong with that. But to attribute to that goal some angelic motive is just plain silly.

BarbaraBrown:

When a worker becomes unionized they lose the right to speak directly to their employer on matters of wages and working conditions.  They are legally bound to representation by a third party, a separate entity, a labor union.

A worker doesn't "become unionized", he joins a union. He joins his voice with that of his fellow employees for bargaining clout. That is your fear, and the fear of all business, because it means they must deal with a much more powerful force than one employee standing alone. This is how workers in this country, and all over the world, eventually share in the wealth of the free enterprise system. It is happening slowly in developing countries, but it is happening. From the times of the serfs on fuedal farms in Europe to the factories and work places of our modern world, workers eventually demand their share, and they have found over the ages that a collective voice speaks much louder than a single voice.

gypsy:

"What I'm saying is racism and sexism limited the labor pool for skilled workers and contributed to a labor shortage."

Your opinion, for which you offer no proof whatsoever. Maybe because there isn't any.

This confuses me.  Are you saying it's only my opinion that racism and sexism limited the skilled labor pool to white males? Really?

And the reason for that is evolution? It had nothing to do with people fighting for their civil and economic rights? It just happened? We didn't need a MLK or Civil Rights Act or labor laws or laws to protect children and protect citizens? Surely you jest.

um, did I say that?

No, I said as a society we have evolved beyond the atrocities of our past and as human beings we are all becoming more enlightened.  I'm not suggesting we repeal existing labor laws or even out law unions.  This thread is only about the notion of forcing businesses into union agreements.  If the employees of a business still want a union good for them.  (well, actually, IMHO bad for them, but no one is suggesting making unions illegal, still)  

And I would imagine that if unions were to go the way of the milk chute and the buggy whip and we devolve back into child labor and indentured servitude Americans will once again rise up, on their own, to demand fairness and decency in the workplace just like they first did over a hundred years ago. And if and when they do they won't need a top heavy out of touch dues sucking dinosaur "labor organization" led by bloated gas bags like Trumka and hasbeen hippies like Bob King to do it for them.  

 I am not so naive as to think if we let business just be business it will always be just and equitable with it's employees. I'm quite certain you aren't either. Business has one goal, and that is to make money. Nothing wrong with that. But to attribute to that goal some angelic motive is just plain silly.

Nope.  I'm suggesting that it's good business to hire, train and retain a strong workforce and keep them as happy on the job as reasonably possible.  That's not an angelic goal, it's a business goal, and believe it or not, not all business goals involve inflicting human suffering.  

A worker doesn't "become unionized", he joins a union. He joins his voice with that of his fellow employees for bargaining clout. That is your fear, and the fear of all business, because it means they must deal with a much more powerful force than one employee standing alone. This is how workers in this country, and all over the world, eventually share in the wealth of the free enterprise system. It is happening slowly in developing countries, but it is happening. From the times of the serfs on fuedal farms in Europe to the factories and work places of our modern world, workers eventually demand their share, and they have found over the ages that a collective voice speaks much louder than a single voice.

Well, point of fact, some workers indeed do become "unionized".  As a matter of fact, the majority of today's unionized workers got that way by accepting a job where a union was already in place.  And given the current state of the economy, it's a safe bet that unionized workers who don't want, like or need a union don't feel safe just leaving a unionized job for that reason.  

And then there's the whole issue of workers who were and still are being unionized through card check without a secret ballot election after a union leveraged an employer into a neutrality agreement.  And what about all those workers who only "join" the union because they must to keep their job or avoid retaliation?  

And while I can't speak for all business, I can say the fear is not of employees standing together to call attention to problems on the job.  The fear is the intrusion of a third party and onerous work rules into the workplace, along with the ridiculous legal costs involved when dealing with a union.  

And as for those serfs, wow, powerful stuff.  I'm sure glad the Dark Ages are over! 

If you are saying that racism and sexism caused a labor shortage, prove it.

um, yes, you did say society evolved to be less brutal, more civil etc.. Now you have added enlightened. I am saying that evolution, as you put it, was forced on society by laws and rules gained through sacrifice and battle. The term evolution implies it was just a natural occurence, when in fact racism and bigotry seems to be more the natural state of society.

We don't need to revert back to the "milk chute and buggy whip days". But that will take vigilance and tenacity to keep what we have. Unions need to protect their gains, not wait until we have lost them, then fight the fights all over again.

We've been through this discussion before about workers "becoming unionized". No worker applies for a job with an employer without knowing the workers there have a union, if they do. If they don't want to be in a union, they need not apply. They understand that getting a job there includes joining that union. The choice is theirs. Most workers don't "accept" jobs, they apply for them. Especially in todays job market.

I know you like that "third party" term. Makes it sound like a union is another entity, rather than what it is, the collective voice of the workers. Sort of like some who rail against the "gumit", like it is another entity, not our freely elected representatives. Makes it much easier to demonize.

Yes, I'm glad the Dark Ages are over too. We've come a long way. Been a lot of blood and tears to get where we are today. We should never take it for granted.

I'm saying racism and sexism contributed to a shortage of skilled labor during the postwar era along with the explosive growth of the US postwar economy and the lives lost to military casualties and disability. To me it's common sense based on common knowlege.  While I'm at it I guess I can prove the sky is blue.  

Or perhaps, better put, the rapid expansion of the workforce as baby boomers entered adulthood along with women and minorities as full participants, coupled with lax immigration enforcement, a slowing economy and much stronger competition from overseas has resulted in greater competition for fewer jobs, particularly unskilled job.    

I find it interesting that, in my talks with unionists, unemployment is a tragedy unless one is unemployed because one doesn't want to be forced to join a union.  Then suddenly the attitude become quite cavalier about the "choices" of where one can find work.  

Your argument is becoming quite hard to follow, maybe just for me. You seem to be making excuses for attributing a shortage of labor in the post WWII economy to racism and sexism, when in fact "common knowledge" attributes it to military casualties and disabilities and a booming economy. Duh... whatever.

Then you go on to attribute greater competition in the workforce to "lax immigration" and baby boomers entering the workforce. Being a boomer myself, I can't understand that at all, since jobs were readily available when I entered the workforce, and immigration enforcement has increased, not decreased. Back in the day, immigration was not even an issue.

BarbaraBrown:

I find it interesting that, in my talks with unionists, unemployment is a tragedy unless one is unemployed because one doesn't want to be forced to join a union.  Then suddenly the attitude become quite cavalier about the "choices" of where one can find work.

Hard to understand this thought, or just who you've been talking to. And what is a "unionist"? Is that a union member or someone not in a union but believes in a union? Maybe someone who would like to be in a union? I've never talked to a unionist. I've had many conversations with union members, and many with those opposed to unions, (this being one), but I've never heard anyone referred to as a unionist.