Tammy Bruce: Democrats Push Union-Empowering Bills

Democrats Push Union-Empowering Bills

A post by Maynard

The unions are a powerful special interest that supports the Democrats, and it's not surprising that union-friendly legislation is starting to pop up. With Democrats at the helm, we will see more news like this FOXNews story.

Union power in America peaked at more than a third of the workforce fifty years ago, but has been in decline ever since. Basically, the unionized companies lost ground to non-union and foreign competition. In the recent era, the growth in union power has been due to unionized government jobs. This makes sense: Private companies go broke and the union jobs disappear, but as long as governments collect taxes, the public sector union jobs are safe. It would be a wonderful world if we could all work for the government, eh?

I wouldn't argue that unions are inherently good or bad, because that's a question of context. Historically, management has often abused employees (how many of you can tell personal stories of abuse at the hands of a sadistic boss?), so it's reasonable that employees should have a voice. But what is the right balance between union power and management power? Will more unionization strengthen the middle class, as the Democrats tell us? Or will it just strangle more industries and squeeze the taxpayers? And why is it that, when monopolies are generally frowned upon, a monopoly on labor is considered a good thing? Why is requiring an employer to hire employees from a single source more reasonable than requiring a factory to buy steel from a single source?

Perhaps the most awkward aspect of union labor is the lack of flexibility. The job categories are more rigidly assigned. The employees become worker ants, very limited in the scope of their task. It is difficult to discipline or fire a bad employee, because the union will back him up.

I'll give an example that I have personal knowledge of. The unions in the entertainment industry are legendary for their aggressive rigidity. Once, there were some visitors at a studio who were left in a waiting area for a few minutes. A monitor was blaring out an annoying test tone at high volume, so one of the people turned down the volume. This was a mistake. A union worker noticed, and an uproar ensued. The union people scattered to find the specialist who was authorized to change the volume of the monitor. This man, having been summoned, angrily rebuked the crowd. If anyone touched that monitor again, he promised to file a grievance. With that, he switched the volume all the way up and fled the scene.

Posted by Maynard · March 3, 2007 01:41 PM · Permalink
Economy/Economics | Maynard Post | Politics

Comments

I was working at Chrysler Tech Center when the unionized cafeteria workers went on strike. The food service management manned the counters and office workers continued buying lunch at the cafeteria. One day about half-a-dozen muscular goons dressed in black showed up. As the people lined up at the counter to order, the goons would get very close and “remind” them the cafeteria workers were on strike. People lost their appetites very quickly.

Posted by: pat_s at March 3, 2007 04:01 PM

There once was a need for unions. Those days are long gone. The unions are out for the good of the unions--nobody else. It's all about the money.

Posted by: Kimj7157 at March 3, 2007 06:10 PM

Real reform of unions would come very quickly if Congress would repeal its law that only one bargaining unit can be recognized once a union wins an election, even if only be one vote.

Posted by: St. Thor at March 4, 2007 06:46 AM

hi kim,
you are right, it's all about the money. Add this caveat however, the management is out to maximize profit and one of the quickest easiest ways is to reduce labor cost. Like Maynard i don't know where the right balance is. i am sure that there are just as many stories of abuse on both sides and tend to be wary of deciding based on "case studies" (used to justify much in the psychology arena). Just today there is an article on the grocery strike of 3 years ago. That's where replacements could be trained in 3 days, and yet you have been in the stores and seen the lines at the registers; trust me being a cashier with a backed up line for hours is stressful (and stress kills). So there are two sides. Where's the balance? i'm not sure. ((but Maxine Waters is))

Posted by: botg at March 4, 2007 06:51 AM

Entertainment unions explains why Hollywood is so liberal & pro-Democrat. Of course America-hating also plays well to movie-going European audiences as well. They make money bashing the U.S. anywhere in the world, and with a global economy, the payoff is obviously worth it. Here, American's don't boycott enough. I won't ever pay to see a movie with Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, etc.
I tell my friends that if you enjoy the gruff, indifferent 'courtesy' of the DMV or the customer orientated efficiency of the I-don't-give-a-damn-about-you- slow-as-molasses Postal Clerk, then go ahead, vote Demoncrat.

Posted by: helpunderdog at March 4, 2007 12:41 PM

The MSM repeatedly beat the drum about how CEOs keep getting more and more while their businesses go down the tubes and employee pay stays stagnant.

I keep waiting for the article on how the Union Bosses pay goes up and up, while Union Dues take a bigger and bigger bite out of the workers paychecks actually lowering the workers standard of living.

Posted by: lnthomp at March 4, 2007 01:06 PM

The point is really not if unions are any good or not . It is that the Unions and the left wing liberal politicians are so twisted and corrupt that they can not even agree on keeping who votes for what a secret ! They are totally incapable of the basic rules of fairness !

Posted by: raygarb at March 4, 2007 01:59 PM

By Category

By Month

Democrats Push Union-Empowering Bills

Comments

Post a comment