So, are unions a good or a bad thing?

Very good concept, at least in the skilled trades.

That's the problem I think modern unions have actually. Too little focus on skilled trades and physically dangerous jobs. Too much on white collar and clerical bullshit like writers, teachers, government clerks, etc.

I'm a millennial and I cannot remember a nationally high profile strike that wasn't about something like that writers one from the 2000s, a grocery store workers strike that happened in my home town, or the habitual teachers strikes that seem to happen seasonally.

WTF happened?

So how does a union get concessions it's supped to be getting (there is no reason to organize a union other than to gain concessions from employees on certain issues) without the ability to strike?

So white collar workers don't deserve protection?

Idk, but they shouldn't come first/be the primary recipients of that protection. Right now I'd say they are, and yes, that's a problem because it comes at the detriment of blue collar labor and workers with more dangerous professions.

Also my point does just complain about white collar jobs, it's about menial jobs like fast food workers and cleaning ladies.

This and to collect dues. I used to cook at a union hotel. Corporate and the union got into an argument over the new contract so the union went to our biggest accounts and told them corporate is "mistreating" employees. That resulted in a lack of banquets so we got laid off for two months and unemployment barely paid shit so I had to sell my plasma.
Other than that I will admit that I was overpaid and had really good benefits and if my boss was being an asshole all I had to do was threaten to call my union rep he would fuck off and not even talk to me for a week. I kind of miss it desu.

Each industry has it's own union. There's no cross-field dispersal for treatment.

The idea, as long as it is private sector, is fine. The issues are implementation, leadership, public sector ones, and taking fees out of earning of those who do not qualify to join the union. Also, treating them as "brotherhoods" is creepy and overlooks conflicts and profound disagreements amongst coworkers and colleagues and I especially say that since I had to work with some really scummy shitheads in the past who I would never call "brother" or "fellow member of the working class."

Also, guilds are fine as long as they do not become monopolies. In fact, I hope to achieve certification in CNC machining and work as an independent contractor but may need to join a guild or craft union for insurance.

Oh on a side note, Trumka of the AFL-CIO should be removed and thrown in prison for his corruption and the UFCW should be replaced with unions that operate within their respective companies since the UFCW screwed over members and tends hold two contracts: one the voting members see and the other the lawyers see.

They played a very important role in the foundation of worker's rights. Now, they are fucking cancer.

I'm not saying one sector or industry doesn't have less union representation, I mean in terms of actual influence and power. It's all with the clerical and public sector stuff post 1990s. Like I said previously, can't think of a high profile coal miners' or manufacturers' strike in the past 20 years where the owners were shitting their pants.

Can think of plenty ones where people like writers or teachers were striking and there was attention given.

Unions make it impossible to fire people for being assholes. So you end up with a bunch of high seniority assholes who disregard most rules with impunity. They do bullshit that would get others fired, but get their job back and set the precedent. Then in response the company does jewy stuff to avoid whatever the situation was to begin with and the work environment gets to be like a kindergarten classroom and ever increasing scrutiny like a prison.

Because miners have it pretty cushy. But sure, i see your point that some unions are lazy and easily bought.

private unions are fine and make sense, public unions are a scourge of the highest order

The same way one gets something from a friend, talking through the issue. Lets say the union wants to have more safety for a certain part of industry. I would make the argument that not to do so could effect the health of the workers, the family of the workers, and over all moral. There is then an evaluation on how that will effect production, and a working over of the problem would ensue, reaching a conclusion of procedure change, physical operation change, etc. A strike only hurts the workers because it hurts society, and it is in the best interest of all people in that society to work out the problem, other wise it would be delaying and issue and making it worse.

It really depends on the type of labor and how badly the employer needs the employee's knowledge and skills. Take the steel industry for example. Good luck retraining laypeople people on sophisticated equipment safely. Most laborers are a brain cell away from retardation. Bosses will suck the dick of people with proven experience before they train someone who doesn't know shit.

Attached: 3eFbDdm.gif (480x360, 3.05M)

As a concept, they are great.
In practice they devolved into a piggy bank for Democrats to import cheaper labor

It's not so much that I'm saying they're lazy, anyone can be lazy, I'm saying that it's retarded they're the priority. Go look at union membership, the overwhelming majority of it in the United States is in the public sector and that trend is only increasing. Go do some reading about Taft-Hartley to understand what I'm getting at.

Yes I agree completely.

Almost need some union diversity and choice. Or ombudsmen like we have here.
But they can all be corrupted.

What's the last resort for the union then? Surely, you can't just ignore that two negotiating parties are going to be perfectly cooperative in each instance. There will indeed be times when cooperation is not sought be either party, and all it takes is for one party to derail a negotiation.

I assume your remedy would be to have the state make the call? How often would the state make a decision favorable to the union for it to be worth it to the union to want to participate in such a system that you describe?

So in Australia each union is required to have an ombudsman? Can you explain?

It's meant to be an independent position with great powers to keep them in check. They can't just slap them down, but they will make sure they don't exceed or abuse their mandate.

Who are they appointed/elected by? Members?

Generally speaking, unions allow you to fight back against your bosses' BS in a much more secure manner than without it. They can be very bureaucratic though which makes things tough. Also, union bureaucrats tend to just want a comfortable position near the top without actually doing anything to help you.

That said, unionization isn't the end all be all. Sometimes it's not worth it in a particular industry, particularly if the labor market is still favorable enough to the workers, so that getting a better job is easier than trying to improve the one you have.

Also, people who think that unions are too "antagonistic" just don't understand that working for a boss is inherently antagonistic. Unions just expose the reality of the situation.