Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Certainly unions have had a negative impact at times, but I think it's important to assess the issue as it is today rather than as it has been. In the auto industry for instance the unions have already made some big concessions as part of restructuring during the recession.
-spence
|
This is like giving credit to someone who set fire to a house for then begrudgingly putting the fire out.
Unions had a place back before OSHA, before worker safety laws, before exploitation laws. Now that there are employee protections, unions are completely irrelevant and do nothing but stifle productivity, benefit the lazy, foster corruption and reward the oldest guy on the job site (instead of the best guy at the job)...
THAT is "assessing the issue as it is today rather than as it has been".
With your comments about Apple's manufacturing, you're referencing a country (China) that has no regard for the environment, it's workers, quality or integrity. Frankly, I'd agree that unions would play a beneficial roll to the Chinese workers. However, that also means that companies will stop sending their manufacturing to China because... Unions unquestionably result in higher costs. I'm not saying those higher costs in China aren't necessary, but there's no arguing that costs would increase.
Using China's manufacturing industry with it's lack of environment and safety laws as justification for why unions play a beneficial role in the US is bordering on lunacy and a complete detachment from perspective.
There's one question that no one that opposes "Right to Work" has ever been able to answer for me:
What is the negative to giving people a choice to be part of a union or not? If unions are so great and do so much good for their members, then they won't have any trouble retaining every single one of their members.