Heritage study: unions don't help private sector workers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 159002
  • Start date Start date
Basically, the article seems to say that unions may or may not benefit workers, and it all depends on each individual circumstance. If I get that wrong please correct me.

There were several incidents in which there was violence used by corporations to break up strikes and other collective actions taken by their workers, and organized by their respective unions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

That above is an example. If the workers want better, what other choice do they have than to collectively bargain? A corporation, or large business like a union of owners, and capitalists in and of itself. They have their resources. Workers need resources too.
 
That study is wrong, mainly because wages haven't followed production. Also union employees do typically make more than non union plants.
 
You have to fix trade to give Unions back their leverage.

This is how this goes down. Union and management disagree, management uses this as the excuse to outsource. Unions are forced into a cowering position.

Until we fix trade, unions are paper tigers.

Automation is the roaring lion coming in anyways. You can fix trade but you can stop technological progression.

Also, i bet the US joins TPP and CETA
 
Your study is from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, which immediately makes it biased against unions.



Next.
 
I for one am SHOCKED that the Heritage Foundation does not like unions.
 
Your study is from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, which immediately makes it biased against unions.



Next.

No doubt Heritage has an agenda. That fact itself doesn't mean there are flaws in the methods of this study.
 
Automation is the roaring lion coming in anyways. You can fix trade but you can stop technological progression.

Also, i bet the US joins TPP and CETA

LOL @ joining TPP and CETA. Anyone who votes for either bill, will get voted out of office. The day Warren and Sanders delayed fast track authority, and made this an election issue, is the day both bills died.
 
I prefer my biased studies done from the Cato institute or from the national review
 
No doubt Heritage has an agenda. That fact itself doesn't mean there are flaws in the methods of this study.

Fair, but it makes me extremely suspicious and less inclined to put in the work to digest it.

If you could summarize the arguments and evidence, that would help.
 
I'm a union tradesman and I definitely believe that non-union guys are benefiting. Non-union properties are paying their guys similar wages to ours to prevent them from jumping ship onto a union property. I know the Wynn properties pay their guys MORE than us to prevent the shop from talking to union reps.
 
LOL @ joining TPP and CETA. Anyone who votes for either bill, will get voted out of office. The day Warren and Sanders delayed fast track authority, and made this an election issue, is the day both bills died.

lets bookmark this for a "told you so moment". But, its going to happen.

I think the vast majority of Bern supporters have no clue what trade is.
 
Unions don't help workers, that explains exactly why so many companies (Walmart for instance) are scared shitless of unions.

Let them unionize, depress their pay, and increase those margins amirite?

That is how it works right?
 
Without unions we would all be working 6 days a week and 15 hour days for slave wages, we need more unions , Reagan did a bang up job busting unions and look what the result has been , wages have been stagnant since he was in office , coincidence? I dont think so , to be clear i don't belong to a union as I'm self employed , neither does my wife but i recognize their importance.
 
Last edited:
When a place unionizes, cost goes up and productivity goes down, though. And it makes it hard as shit to fire a total fuck up. The employees turn into spoiled princesses.
 
I'll read the study at a later time - simply don't have time at the moment. The Heritage foundation is a bit sketchy, as pointed out, but that doesn't mean their methodology is without merit and I'm curious to read it.

That being said, immediate tangible benefits from unions aside, we're on the verge of a significantly changing work environment and without unions the workers don't have a voice or any significant bargaining power. Even if the status quo isn't horrible for workers - a point worth arguing both ways - what happens in ten years, twenty years, when automation does kick in more, when there is some significant change, who's going to bat for the regular worker if not unions? We can't entirely predict what's coming and unions need to be present to help the worker bargain with the times and keep conditions favourable for the working class.

This all being the case though, unions need to trim the fat. The model of unions that kicked around decades ago just doesn't cut it in today's world. The unions are a means by which the workers can unify and use their collective power to strike back at a changing world, but unions aren't the only game in town and unions need to stop acting like it and learn to roll with the punches a little better. In a globalized world, first world workers don't call the shots any more and the workers - the unions - need to realize that they aren't just competing against their own governments and the state next door. They're competing with globalized labour that can significantly undercut them and there are markets beyond first world borders that matter - and if unions come in all guns blazing, pulling a Detroit and demanding they get their way, they will be crushed by larger forces. The unions of today can't dictate - they need to play a game of give and take, and use their power to compromise from a position of weakness unlike they were in decades ago.

Unions are important, and one study won't change that. Unions must change with the times though and no politician, no unified movement no matter how large, is going to roll back the clocks on this one. Unions need to stay alive for what is to come, and unions - along with worker expectations - need to change too.
 
As if most sources do not have certain biases.

Too tired to read through that but from what i can tell from skimming is that it went in depth and pretty heavily sourced. It could be pure malarky but it could it also be valid.

If someone would summarize it, i would appreciate it.
 
When a place unionizes, cost goes up and productivity goes down, though. And it makes it hard as shit to fire a total fuck up. The employees turn into spoiled princesses.
When places unionize, productive virtually always goes up.
 
No doubt Heritage has an agenda. That fact itself doesn't mean there are flaws in the methods of this study.

They put out non peer reviewed junk social science, it's fair to dismiss it as barley better than propaganda.
 
Back
Top