True enough. The men who had great jobs in the 50s had frequently been soldiers in the 40s. They’d been raised in the 30s during the great depression. They’d been through hardships. It was their kids who grew up in relative luxury. I’m sure some of it was pulling the ladder up after themselves. But, in addition they hadn’t had to fight to establish their union, it was just there when they joined the job. Because of that, they didn’t know how important it was, and so they didn’t know they should be fighting to keep it strong.
And, to be fair, there was some corruption in unions. But, they could have rooted out that corruption and had a union that represented them. Instead they abandoned unions and embraced “rugged individualism”.
There’s corruption almost everywhere. The unions only survive because there’s corruption in the companies, so the union corruption is usually a lesser evil.
For what good the market is, as long as unions aren’t illegal, they should always balance out the corporate greed.
Sure, there’s some corruption everywhere. But, for example, the teamsters union was massively infiltrated by organized crime. Unions are good, but like companies they need oversight.
Unions are good, but like companies they need oversight.
What we need then is a union union, which negotiates with the union to make sure they do their job and keep fees nominal, and if they refuse, it holds their dues. Of course, we can’t have that for free, so … unions all the way down?
The US government already oversees unions through the NLRB, but currently isn’t able to do anything because Trump has removed the chair and not appointed a replacement. I don’t think a broken NLRB is any worse than no NLRB at all.
True enough. The men who had great jobs in the 50s had frequently been soldiers in the 40s. They’d been raised in the 30s during the great depression. They’d been through hardships. It was their kids who grew up in relative luxury. I’m sure some of it was pulling the ladder up after themselves. But, in addition they hadn’t had to fight to establish their union, it was just there when they joined the job. Because of that, they didn’t know how important it was, and so they didn’t know they should be fighting to keep it strong.
Yeah they just saw money coming out of their check for union dues and propaganda about how union reps were corrupt
And, to be fair, there was some corruption in unions. But, they could have rooted out that corruption and had a union that represented them. Instead they abandoned unions and embraced “rugged individualism”.
There’s corruption almost everywhere. The unions only survive because there’s corruption in the companies, so the union corruption is usually a lesser evil.
For what good the market is, as long as unions aren’t illegal, they should always balance out the corporate greed.
Sure, there’s some corruption everywhere. But, for example, the teamsters union was massively infiltrated by organized crime. Unions are good, but like companies they need oversight.
What we need then is a union union, which negotiates with the union to make sure they do their job and keep fees nominal, and if they refuse, it holds their dues. Of course, we can’t have that for free, so … unions all the way down?
Or a government that oversees unions, just like they oversee clean water and safe medicine.
(shaky stare at the US government at the moment)
I’m not sure that’s a good idea…
The US government already oversees unions through the NLRB, but currently isn’t able to do anything because Trump has removed the chair and not appointed a replacement. I don’t think a broken NLRB is any worse than no NLRB at all.