(Quote) Paul-866591 said:
The coal mining industry was the most unionized with well paid employees and well pension...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:
The coal mining industry was the most unionized with well paid employees and well pensioned retirees. But that was when John L. Lewis ran things. He saw that his workers were well cared for while realizing that automation was inevitable. So he worked with reality.
Guess what? After Lewis came the "everything belong to the workers and I want power leaders."
The union destroyed itself. So most coal miners are not and do not want to be Union members.
Look at the teamsters. So many crooks ran that one for the longest time. Still a powerful union as Unions go, but a shell of what it used to be. No union busting there. A little too much head busting by the union drove people out.
The Lady Garment Workers Union. Demanded more and more so that it drove those jobs overseas. Where is that union today? Who were its leaders looking out for?
Unions are still very powerful even though they represent so few workers. Because they have the extorted cash with which they line the politicians pockets, especially liberal politicians. So a WalMart which managed to keep itself free of unions so far and does well for its regular employees and continues to try to keep itself Union free. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
And please don't hand me the canard about how horrible WalMart is to its employees. Its employment practises are exactly the same as the rest of them, a heavy reliance on part time help. Its wages are comparable to all the others as is its benefits packages. The difference, they are demonized because they are union free and the rest aren't.
You don't have to shop there, but the public has voted with its pocketbook. Sears used to be the largest retail chain in the world. A lot of bad management has made it something like only tenth largest in the US and even further down the list internationally.
Union members in the US voted with their feet.
Argue that Unions are necessary and I would wholeheartedly agree. But until Unions get back to the their job of truly representing the workers they purport to serve, it just is not going to happen.
I agree with you that some unions have been co-opted.
However, that large chain stores purposefully keep most of their employees at part-time is no canard. It is purposeful economic policy.
If you look at things from the perspective of the corporation, keeping the greater majority of your employees as part-timers is cheaper for the overall bottom line of the corporation, in terms of laws that have to be followed if employing people full-time.
Walmart used to have butchers. Honest-to-gosh butchers, where you could have a special cut made for you. Ten butchers in one store wanted to unionize. What did Walmart do? They eliminated the butcher section. At all of their stores. Simply decided they didn't need butchers anymore. Fired all those employees, just because a few employess were talking about unionizing.
I read an article within the past few days where a Walmart worker said they were only scheduled for 28 hours every week, at a rate of $8.90/hr. Do the math. This works out to $249.20/week, before taxes. For a single person with no children, those wages put them almost squarely on top of the poverty line. If you have a child, you are living below the poverty line. And if that person has to work a second job--which many part-timers have to do--just to make ends meet, then you get a second shock, because more taxes are taken out of your paycheck from your second job, just because you're working two jobs.
So, a person is a part-time worker. But, they're probably working upwards of 50-60 hours/week, because they have to work two (or more) jobs, just to get by. And this means they don't get to spend much time with their children. Why? Because it's better for the corporation's bottom line.
Do unions have PACs. Absolutely. But corporations and industries have PACs, too, and they line their respective politicians' pockets as equally, if not better. So don't go blaming one side without taking into account the entire picture. Remember, it was the Roberts' court that upheld Citizens United: en.wikipedia.org
In the end, though, I find it curious that you ultimately support unions.