dpurcel: I'm definitely pro-labor. A strong, unified, progressive labor movement is *the* only hope for progressive social change in this country. Sure, labor unions have their problems, but what sector of society doesn't?

As for the bum rap organized labor currently has, consider that all of the image makers in the U.S. are controlled by major (often multinational) corporations that are only hurt by an organized workforce (i.e., higher wages, more controls on workplace conditions, etc.). GE owns NBC, and Disney (or is it Ted Turner?) owns ABC -- these are companies that employ thousands of workers, workers these companies want to pay less and less for longer hours of work. Do you think NBC or ABC are going to report anything positive about unions?

By not supporting organized labor, you're only hurting yourself in the long run. What else is going to slow or stop the march of downsizing, capital accumulation in the hands of the few, and deteriorating workplace conditions?

Kimmy: This is a very complex issue to me. On the one hand, I totally support the idea of fair labour practices and understand that in many cases, unions serve employees well in maintaining good standards. However, my experience with unions has seen them to be run by power hungry ruffians who use intimidation tactics against their employers, the media, and their fellow union members. A friend of mine -- not that long ago -- witnessed a co-worker being harassed by a group of union thugs during a walk-out and was riled enough to stand up to them. They pit management against the other workers... Basically, in my head I think there must be some way for unions to be useful and productive, but I've never seem them function that way.

Pisspot: The issue is really not very complicated. Unions either drive up the price of business or business goes elsewhere. Unions force industries to pay higher, unnatural, rates to labor than it would otherwise have to if pure market forces were allowed to do their thing.

A free market determines what a prevailing wage should be, but when unions are involved salaries become steeper than they should be. Companies downsize because they cannot afford high labor costs. Companies are either forced to invest in labor-saving capital (and release some workers) or they just move entire productions facilities to countries with cheaper labor. It only makes sense. Why should a company be forced to pay more than they have to? In the long-run, it only leads to higher prices for its finished goods, which decreases competitiveness, which could eventually lead to the company being driven out of business.

To stay "lean and mean" industries must think globally. This means being aware of international competition. In the "real world" salaries often do not even approach American salaries for similar jobs.

So, if you don't mind paying higher prices for finished goods and you don't mind seeing your buddy John unemployed so that his chum Bill could make higher wages, you might be pro-union.

sneeboo: Get real, Pisspot -- you have bought into the corporate toadie thing to an unhealthy degree. While I'm no fan of labor unions, your assertion that "the free market determines wages" and that companies will go out of business if these wages are exceeded is ludicrous. Today's corporations are just unbelievably greedy, and they have no sense of responsibility towards workers or the communities they destroy. Case in point: GM posted a $1.3 billion dollar *profit* this week, even as they face a strike from the CAW and narrowly avoided one from the UAW last month. At issue was GM pulling a shuffling po'-boy routine and claiming that to be competitive they have to further cut costs -- by hiring more temps without benefits or decent salary, and by sending jobs to Mexico (both of which eliminate full-time American jobs). Maybe it's just me, but a profit of more than $1 billion seems pretty tasty --and we're supposed to believe these jackals are going to go broke if they don't shave costs *more*? The bigger question is probably not "Will corporations teeter on the edge of ruin if they have to pay higher wages?" but rather "Who the hell is going to be able to buy their products when we've all been reduced to $6-an-hour temp slaves with no insurance?"

mdulcey: Unions are a potentially important part of the balance of power between labor and management. But the real-world unions (just as real-world employers did in the Bad Old Days before the government kept an eye on them) have gone in for excessive practices that are the cause for most of the dislike of them.

Most of us won't debate that workers are entitled to a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, or that people should be able to work in a safe workplace. But union work rules frequently get in the way of the fair days work part of the equation, resulting in people getting paid for doing little or no work.

I personally have a real problem with work rules that restrict the type of work that people can be asked to do (within reason; restricting normal humans to being required to lift 200 pound objects would not be unreasonable, for instance).

We have all heard of the newspaper typesetters who are paid to set type that isn't used (because the paper switched to computer layout years ago). The MBTA here in Boston has had some blatant examples in their work yards. One commonly cited example is the job that consists of nothing but moving buses into and out of the garage. If there are no vehicles to move, he does nothing; if there are people waiting to work on buses, but there is no bus-mover available, the repairmen wait.

Anyway, whenever you have an imbalance of supply and demand, and doubly so when one side is dominated by a small number of large entities, abuses of power are likely to happen. In the seeming future of increasing corporate giantism, labor unions are likely to see a renewed importance. Let's hope they exercise their power more responsibly than the last time around.

jlin: There is no union anywhere that can keep your job for you. Stop paying union dues that are, in reality, protection money -- because those union dues are doing nothing but drawing interest and making money for the big guys.

jdweeks: Hey sneeboo, you get real. Where do you think those corporate profits go? Stockholders like me and thousands of others. Profits mean people buy more stock and the company grows. The economy grows. Face it, unions have declined because they have been unable to change with the times. They still want to put tacks on the driveway. Of course you probably put your investments into a Christmas Club account at your local S&L.;

sneeboo: Well, jdweeks, aren't we a pompous, smug, elitist jackass? Two things: while you're making your pathetic little twenty cents a share, the CEOs are making salaries in the millions of dollars *and* earning more from their stock options than a little fish like you can even dream about. THAT is where I think corporate profits really go, Mr. Bigshot Investor (I certainly don't think much of the largesse of corporate America has made it to your home town of Gardendale, Alabama -- a godforsaken stretch of pre-fab fast-food joints and Wal-Marts on the outskirts of Birmingham is not exactly Bel-Air, is it?). And secondly, your smarmy comments about Christmas Club accounts do not take into account the many working poor who cannot afford to play in the stock market like you can, asshole. Those people would be lucky and grateful to have a little Christmas Club account. And those people, often are not, remain among the working poor because companies are set up to reward dillweeds like yourself instead of the workers who make profits possible. Get your head out of your privileged ass and learn to see beyond the end of your nose -- or your wallet.

smithdg: I think it was Phil Ochs (not exactly a radical rightist himself) who wrote a song called "I Believe, I Do" that parodied the union dilemma to this effect: The union boss told me that his Cadillac was "no extravagance at all", while his winter home in Miami Beach "merely helped to roll the union on."

While unions arose in a time when the word of the employer was law and working conditions were frequently unsafe and inhospitable, I fear that the pendulum may have swung to the other extreme. What is gained by replacing unfeeling, uncaring management with an unfeeling, uncaring union? The place where I work *requires* that employees pay union dues, but the union is spectacularly ineffective, and has recently cemented its attitude by "electing" a "president for life". Papa Doc Duvalier, your spirit lives on!

mlofton: I am NOT in management and I am reluctantly represented by a union. I believe that labor laws are sufficient to protect employees against unlawful acts by employers.

I am opposed to labor unions. I feel that they are closely linked with organized crime, if not directly involved. In fact, some of the major current labor leaders are under investigation. Furthermore, I believe that they cater the lowest common denominator in our society...those who cannot or will not rely on their own abilities to provide for themselves. The also have an undue influence on our political process. Those at the top do not necessarily represent those in the membership. Yet they have the funds available to devote up to $85 million of union funds to the current presidential race (as has been reported in the press).

dPenner: While unions have had a purpose in the past, I feel they have outlived their usefulness. My biggest beef with unions is seniority. When organizations face downsizing -- for whatever reason -- the new hires are the first to go. Organizations need fresh ideas and new energy, but because of unions, they are forced to keep the expensive "dead wood." Granted, the worker does need protection from greedy business -- but is this not a role for government?

MATTA: Put all the speculation on hold. I work in a family business; the company will be 75 years old next year. We used to be mostly union. Now, the company is probably only 30 percent union and 70 percent non-union. It's has been going the non-union route for the past several years. The people in the non-union sector are making more than the union people. Now remember, this is a private company, so the union has plagued my father for years -- hard years. It NEEDS TO GO!!!! We are in a back-order situation now because of a shortage of union workers...go figure. The unions used to work; now they are outdated and they don't work. The work force needs to be a team, not a teamster gang. From experience and for my future, the union is in for a fight. I am young and my fellow young business friends feel the same. It can't be a we vs. they thing anymore; lets get the job done together...

chuckvh: Workers organize labor unions primarily to secure better wages and better working conditions. People organize in order to participate in the decisions which affect them at work. One of the fundamental tenets of democratic government is the consent of the governed. Unions are an extension of that idea. Union members are both workers and citizens. Collective bargaining is the expression of citizenship in employment. Participation in the political life of the nation is but another aspect of that citizenship. In the same way that unions are dedicated to improvement of the terms and conditions of employment, union members are equally dedicated to exert themselves, individually and collectively, to fulfill the promise of a free life. Amidst unparalleled abundance, there should be no want. Surrounded by agricultural surpluses of all descriptions, there should be no hunger. With advanced science and medical research, sickness should not go untreated. A country that can shoot rockets to the moon should be able to take care of its workers.

DHamlin: Unions are a much-needed tool for controlling the greedy people (if you want to call them that) in big business.

roadhog2: Well let me first say that I don't normally do this type of thing. But what the hell -- it's Tripod!!!!

Now as far as unions go......there has been corruption in them, absolutely. As with anything... How's that go now... "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!"

Well, ya'll better think of the government before you pick on them unions too much. think of the corruption that is there ..... or are you suggesting that we get rid of the government also?

But let me say that without labors unions YOU and YOUR children would be working for $40.00 a month. That's a six-day work week to boot. Don't believe it? Well, ask Nike -- thats what they pay their employees in Viet Nam and Indonesia. It's called downsizing and cutting cost. Without labor unions this would happen to you.

Let's take a look at what ex-pres Reagan did for the air traffic controllers. They are no longer represented. Do you feel safe flying, knowing these new controllers are working 12 to 18 hours a shift on 30 and 40 year old equipment? I personally quit flying. The planes are falling out of the sky at an alarming rate because the government did away with unions who made sure things were safe up there!

Before you go and knock unions, maybe you should show us how they "hurt" us. Most, if not all unions have the highest degree of training for their members, bar none. There training techniques are so good the government uses them to train their people (I work for DOT, and yes we do). The bottom line is trickle-down economics.....that's what we keep hearing. But it never reaches the masses, it just trickles down to the CEOs and their cronies who are making millions (plus bonuses) every year for ripping you and me off. I think Nike paying less than 20 cents an hour to their employees and selling that say shoe to you for $150 is just disgraceful!!!!! BTW, they also put high quotas on how many shoes per hour employees must make.
Just one man's 2 cents worth,
Road

wilkeg: This is my opinion on labor unions:

Back during the time when employers would treat workers as mere slaves -- and not think twice about using children to do dangerous labor -- labor unions were a very good idea.

But nowadays it seems that most unions are run by a bunch of bureaucrats who don't always represent the best interests of their members. These 'labor unions' generally serve no purpose but to take dues from their members and use them in any way they see fit. More often than not, big labor seems to bring down both the industry and it's own members.

Labor unions of today are of a far different breed than they were when they were first started. Most workers can get along much better without them.

If workers feel that their employer is too unfair, then their best defense is to either band together without involving big labor unions -- or just simply find a job elsewhere.

wachman: As an RN and member of a 13,000 member union (in Canada), I know that it is only through their contract that I still have my job (and all the benefits).

Bureaucracy abounds in a hospital setting. It is not the union that is bureaucratic. The hospital would do anything from preventing us to collecting overtime pay, week-end pay, shift differential, in-charge pay, and have us work weird and strange hours, lay us off without cause (because we had a difference with our boss or a doctor) -- which would leave us without any protection. I could go on and on.

And if any of you think that we nurses are not worth it, then go to a plumber to get yourself fixed. We ARE the front-line troops. We ARE there 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. We hold your hands, comfort you when you're ill, wipe away your tears, say prayers with you, and weep when you die. That is why we are WORTH it. That is why we need a union. That is why I am proud to be a union person!

wahern: Large corporations, stockholders, the job-poor South, and anyone else who had an interest in diminishing the collective bargaining capicity of workers joined with the right (religious and otherwise) to diminish the union movement. It was successful because union leaders became more interested in their positions than the welfare of the membership. Big business had the money and they showered it on the candidates who did their bidding. The result is that, while the stock market is over 6000, 1 percent of families have 40 percent of the wealth in this country; real wages are dropping; downsizing continues; jobs are going off-shore; and Henry Ford's logical answer to the question of why he paid a decent wage (so the employees could buy the cars) has been forgotten. It isn't going to change a single bit until there is campaign finance reform and legislators are no longer being bought by ADM, Big Tobacco, the NRA and the like. ***Wake up America***

RICKJS: If it were not for the UNIONS, the majority of us working middle class would be working for minimum wages, with no health care or benefits. I work at an appliance manufacturing plant in the midwest. I am convinced that the company execs are only looking for more profit, not the loyalty or respect of the factory workers -- the very people that make this company work! Those of you that put unions down do not care or respect for others than your own. If the unions were so bad, you would not have the record company profits or CEO salaries you see today.

flrmn: I feel labor unions have become too powerful. Their financial influence over our government has centralized voter power unfairly in the mega-population areas and manufacturing cities. The right to work would prevent overpricing of autos, construction, new homes etc. Who knows -- inflation and poverty, could quite possibly become obsolete words.

Ron_Hodges: It was really a delight to read all these fervent opinions on unions. Most unions, incidentally, are trying to change with the times and again be proactive in providing services to their members, such as skills training, high school GEDs, etc. Also, forget the free market and labor prices. The labor prices in the Third World are held down by non-democratic regimes, often military dictatorships. That's where a lot of US jobs have been going (like Nike's). It was not the UAW that brought GM, Ford and Chrysler to their knees, it was the accountants who decided it was more important to extract the maximum profit per unit than to build a quality car. It was not the steelworkers who devastated our steel industry, it was beancounters who extracted the maximum profit per unit and failed to reinvest in modern plants and equipment (even buying oil companies instead!). If you have a 40 hour work week, medical care, a pension, safe working conditions, etc., you can thank the unions of this country.

No organization composed of humans will function smoothly. It's part of our appeal as egoistic creatures. I am very lucky that I work in the company I do, one in which a lot of people in management really do care about the employees and are fighting the beancounters to make the workplace more fair and rewarding for all. I can tell you, that is not the norm. And in a corporation like GM or AT&T, I would join the union right away.

So much for that stream of conciousness...

Oldman: Labor Unions have held an important part in the formation of our country. I think that any fledgling industry has need of a union to act as a counterweight to an unchecked, all-powerful management/owner. Howerver, after the industry has come of age, a diffrent type of counterweight is needed, more of a guild or professional association to mantain quality control both for the employees and for the public at large. Most unions, as they stand today, are top heavy, corrupt and vastly overpaid. Since the downfall of the air traffic controllers, the power of the union has declined drastically, and rightfully so. However nothing has yet emerged to take its place. Any union that causes its members to lose jobs, benefits, or pay should be abolished.

AlMiller: Ideally a corporation should provide well for both the workers and the shareholders, making the need for labor unions obsolete. The company I work for has no unions for most of the work force. The medical, retirement, and profit-sharing benefits are better than that of any union, and workers are generally happy and pleased with the company they work for. Unfortunately, too many other corporations are paying their executives seven-figure salaries and buying new jets at the expense of the American worker.

I am a big fan of Michael Moore and "Roger and Me", and do believe that organized labor still provides an important role in some industries. In a perfect world, workers are happy, are proud of their company and own part of it, and there is an esprit de corps ethic of cooperation and teamwork. The world not being perfect, we still have sweatshops, downsizing, and an obscenely widening gap between the lowest-level workers and the multi-millionaire "suits" who run the companies. A $20-million contract paid to a sports star to endorse a product could buy a lot of homes for people who can't afford them. I have been a union worker, a manager, and a non-union worker in my lifetime, and find opposing viewpoints on the subject to be very valid. Often union leadership can be as corrupt and greedy as their corporate counterparts. If the rich keep getting richer at the expense of the poor, than capitalism as we know it could be doomed when the breaking point is reached. MArxism was borne out of capitalism gone wrong!

rnpotter: I have worked in factories for more than twenty-five years, some with unions and some without. The only reason I could ever find for having one, from a workers vantage, was to protect workers that wanted to do nothing more than take advantage of both the union and the company.

Unions have allowed government to pass enough legislation that protects workers rights that they are no longer needed. Companies, at least for now, have made some giant steps in realizing that their manpower is a resource, not a burden under unionization, and have started to treat people in responsible manner.

The current AFL/CIO activities, as they have stated, have nothing to do with workers rights, but with socializing our workforce to meet their own political goals. They know that the old methods are not going to work and through political leaders like President Clinton, they can regain the clout they once had. It is merely self-serving though, because the power they want will pass to the government and never benifit either the worker or the economy.

rnpotter: For all of those out there who continue to harp about downsizing and huge corporate profits, please wake up. Every newspaper I read or commentary on TV would have us beleive that BIG BAD BUSINESS is " the devil" and that only corporate executives make big bucks. How come unemployment is so low?

I've worked on both sides of the fence and seen the positive and negatives of the each entities.

Mr. Hodges' comments were appreciated, but it is not the responsibility of a union to train prospective or active workers. It's not the union's responsibility to keep track of a companies economic performance. It's not the union's responsibility to see that most of the people applying for jobs in my area can't pass a drug test -- or when they're hired, can't come to work 5 days a week on time.

If we give unions that power -- and that's what they seem to want -- we will have anarchy at its best. dpurcel stated that "labor" was the only hope for progressive social change in this country. Scary thought, but we will all be the poorer for it.

arleno: I think that unions had a place in the past, but have outlived their purpose. Besides, most union employees today are not blue-collar workers but are government employees and teachers -- both of which are in the public service sector!

mohamedally: My union keeps the management of my company honest! If it were not for my union, I would be treated with less respect than I'm being treated now. Most of the supervisors and managers in my company (and the other 2 companies I have worked for in Canada) are bullies and control freaks. My union protects me.

mhustedd: When I hear the word "union" -- or even "organized labor" -- I get angry. Labor unions in the United States have gained too much power in the last 70 years. That power, combined with the labor unions' secret agendas, has done little more than hurt the American worker in the last 25 years. As many people have already said, the labor unions are outdated, archaic hierarchies of control that must be updated and stripped of some of their power before they become effective in today's society.

Labor unions are outdated because they were invented at a time when the American workplace was drastically different from the workplace of today. During the Depression and World-War II era, and before, the American workforce was predominantly a blue collar workforce in which almost everyone worked in a factory or assembly line setting in a very physical job. Look at the workforce of today: technology has evolved so rapidly that, as one person said, "the pendulum has swung the other way." Today's workforce is predominantly white collar in nature, and working hours and methods are drastically different. To be honest, I cannot think of a union that "protects" the white collar worker at this point. Unions still seem to be involved in the blue collar arena, one which continues to shrink as the workforce changes. If the blue collar workforce is shrinking, then why do unions still continue to pretend that they are a viable entity in today's society? Here's why: while their workforce and the percentage of people (not necessarily the number of people) the unions claim to "protect" has been shrinking, the unions continue to gain power and financial support -- usually from a worker who doesn't want to be in the union in the first place.

Unions did a lot for the American worker, back in a time when conditions were intolerable. But new laws and more sensitivity have changed the need for unions. Like the New Deal and Great Society programs, they had their place. They were needed in their time. But their period of usefulness is over. It's time to move on, stop living in the past, and look at ways to further improve the workforce of today, not the workforce of 50, even 100 years ago.

Debbieg: I am Union, can't help it. I'm a Business Manager for a midwestern labor union. First of all , let's get a real perspective on this " Free Market " concept. It's quite fine for corporate heads to play their profit and power games, but they need a check and balance to keep them from becoming so greedy that the U.S. falls to a two-class society. We were almost there before the union movement took hold and broadened a very weak middle class. One of the netizens suggested that Free Market forces should determine wages and conditions -- that route has never worked in the past. Serfs, slaves, peons are the result of the Free Market in the work place. Those who do not learn from history doom the rest of us to repeat it.

Second, corruption in the Unions is being weeded out. It is not that prevailent in the first place. It got there by an unfortunate necessity. When we first took-on the companies, they controled the banks, the police, the National Guard, the government, the press and their own armies of thugs. The only forces capable of helping us ( for a price ) was organized crime. Once we made that connection we found it difficult to break it . But as I said earlier, we are prying them out of the last dark cracks they still hide in.

Finally, how long can these Billion Dollar CEOs survive if none of us can afford the goods and services they make such rediculous profits on? What is wrong with paying a livable wage to those of us who actually keep this profit machine working? Face it , you can heep all the money in the world on top of all the great ideas in the world, but all you'll have is a great green pile until some laboring person does some thing to make it work.

shirons: Labor unions should be deleted from today's society. They did their job well when they were needed. They have done more to hurt the American worker today than they have to help. Labor Union are nothing but an extention of the Democratic National Committee, and have no place in today's American workplace.

carlinejt: Labor Unions served the workers well back in the Thirties, but they have become a drag on the economy. Instead of fighting to aid the lower paid workers, they are primarily interested in increasing the benefits and pay of the workers with seniority. Unions cannot efficiently run any business (although they think they can), but they never fail to fight any management attempt to to improve operations. The argument is about power, and the unions care little about either the lower seniority workers or the company itself.

ben407: In a healthy company a union can be a positive thing -- presuming that the employees are interested in the company. A union can make sure that hourly empoyees are protected from the nutso /scared supervisor, or from from CEO's and other officers from reaping all the loot and leaving nothing for the worker bees.

Closed shops are bad for everyone but the Union bosses. The employee winds up working for two bosses -- the one who signs their check and the one who holds power on the union card. Most of the cases where the dues-payer loses are in closed shop cases where union bosses flexed power in spite of individual membership feelings.

Poorest of all is the union that lets a local veto your survior benefits...like the IBEW in Jefferson City, Mo.

jcarius: I am pro-labor. I am a Union Electrician and proud of it. Labor unions have had problems in the past, but I believe that it is the exception, not the rule these days. Union representation helps to keep workers safe, provide a "livable" wage, and provides benefits that may not be given in a non-union establishment.

As for union members being uneducated, that is not true. In Union construction, the Union and the Contractors, many times have joined up to provide an extensive training curriculum. To become a certified journeyman electrician, you MUST either pass extensive examinations, or attend FIVE YEARS of schooling and on the job training. This is not something your average dipshit can get into.

The IBEW contractors and workers pride themselves in quality work. A slogan that is used often is: "Done right, on time, and under budget."

Dano27: I used to work for a large union up North. All I got out of it was having to pay large monthly "union dues."

I believe that if a worker is not geting paid well, or getting the compensation they think they are worth, then they should go to another company or get a better education.

Your future is in your hands, not those of some union that only looks out for the union's bank account.

dpurcel: The anti-union rhetoric and lack of knowledge about the current state of economic affairs I've read out here is frightening.

rnpotter writes: For all of those out there who continue to harp about downsizing and huge corporate profits, please wake up. Every newspaper I read or commentary on TV would have us beleive that BIG BAD BUSINESS is " the devil" and that only corporate executives make big bucks. How come unemployment is so low?

Unemployment is relatively low compared to where it's been in recent years. But even unemployment statistics are skewed. For one, they don't take into the account the huge number of Americans who have completely *given up* on finding work. They don't count the number of people who are underemployed considering their training, talent, and experience.

And these statistics do not take into account wages -- the average American's *real* wages (accounting for inflation, etc.) have not risen since 1972. Meanwhile, corporate profits and the ratio of highest-to-lowest paid worker in a company continue to grow.

Corporations are becoming less and less accountable everyday to the nations and governments, paying heed only to their stockholders (and that one fellow's comments on his holding stock made me laugh) and to the almighty dollar. Major corporations will continue to move their operations wherever it is necessary to find the lowest labor costs. Fine and dandy, you say, that'll make things less expensive for me. Sure, but it'll also cost you your job in the long run, and guarantee that the products you're buying are of declining quality.

"If we give unions that power -- and that's what they seem to want -- we will have anarchy at its best. dpurcel stated that "labor" was the only hope for progressive social change in this country. Scary thought, but we will all be the poorer for it."

I'd like to hear what rnpotter's recipe for curing our ills is. Or perhaps he doesn't see anything wrong with the current state of American society.

Read and learn, folks -- we're headed on a downward slide, and union workers are close to the last folks you should be blaming.