Monday, February 23, 2009

Does America Still Need Labor Unions?


PARADE MAGAZINE is asking America this question via an online poll. READ THE ARTICLE, TAKE THE POLL.

THE HUDDLER IS PRO LABOR !!!!! Vote early and often. Please send this to your family and friends.

Organized labor helped build America's middle class. A union contract is the difference between having a job that pays a living wage, with affordable-quality healthcare, and the hope of retiring, OR NOT.

The EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT, will be a controversial piece of legislation in coming months. The HUDDLER will be doing an in depth analysis of the Act.

In the mean time, read more about the Employee Free Choice Act.

8 comments:

O said...

Pro labor? Psh! Only somebody who's never experienced the joy of little limbless children playing beneath cotton spinning machines would be "pro labor".

Matt H said...

I have had good & bad experiences with unions but overall they are still needed.

Lady Elaine said...

Oh HUD, my blood ran cold when I read your headline. But then everything worked out when I tapped on the article.

Pro-Labor Union =

-Higher wages
-Better Healthcare
-Pensions
-Greater Voice in workplace safety
-Better chance to get Congress to pass legislation that affect working families

If it wasn't for unions, we wouldn't have 40 hour work weeks, weekends, vacations, The Family Medical Leave Act, Domestic Violence Policy, Sexual Harrassment Policy, and laws against children working.

People actually believe corporations, if left to themselves, would actually protect workers!

MH: I totally agree that unions need to self patrol better, though. If there is a union member that has committed a crime or is lazy and is not doing their work, they need to stop protecting their lazy criminal asses and kick them to the curb.

AMD said...

Talk about burying the lede, Lady Elaine! People's visceral, pro/con reactions to the union question is almost based entirely on the fact that unions are notoriously adversarial to anyone that insists they should patrol their own membership. That's why people are so up-in-arms when a union files grievance after grievance to support some deadbeat employee (who his or her co-workers know is a deadbeat). If (and it's a big "if") unions patrolled their own members for loafers/deadbeats/chronic absentees, I don't think most people would have any problem at all with higher union membership. It's the "He's in the union, you can't discipline or fire him no matter what" mentality that causes people to oppose unions.

THE HUDDLER said...

AMD.

Labor unions have a duty of fair representation for all members, and are required by law to defend the innocent and guilty equally.

It is not the best system. However it is the only system workers have to protect themselves from the boss.

Matt H said...

Officers in the unions are high paid. That's how it was in my union, CWA, when I was a member. I was appalled at the high wages these folks made and the lack of communication they provided to us members when we needed it.

AMD said...

Huddler,
A union's duty of fair representation does not require a union to push all of its members' grievances all the way through the process. the duty only requires that all grievances be treated equally, investigated equally, etc. without regard to race or gender. I think that is the problem with unions pushing these lousy grievances that drives everyone crazy (co-workers, mgmt, the public). They're not required to do it, but they still do.

Crystal Eastman said...

well, the other cool thing about unions, MH, is that they are democratic institutions. if you can find and organize the other people in your union who think the officers are overpaid and you guys are the majority, you can get rid of the lazy bums running the union. you, a member, actually have a say in who represents you and how the organization functions.