Are Labor Unions Good for America, why or why not?
598884
I think they're a necessary evil. NECESSARY, because many employers, if unchecked, would exploit their employees. This is what led to the formation of unions in the first place. Greedy individuals who will make a profit at any cost and not recognize the labor force. \n\nAn EVIL because they can interfere with the freedom of employer to do as they will with their business. And, after all, unions are also run by men who themselves can be greedy and make unreasonable demands on employers.\n\nIn an ideal world, employers would pay fair wages to their employees and there would be no need for union. An honest day's pay for an honest day's work.
305172
For the employer, there aren't any pros.  Employers are much better off bargaining with individual employees.  For the employees, collective bargaining gives the employees power to bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions.  The pros are better wages, benefits, and working conditions than they would have otherwise.  For the employees, the con is having to pay union dues.
590434
Corporations. They've been entrenched against unions for years. The "undocumented immigrants" sounds like a Nativist talking point but there is something else to consider. Raise that minimum wage and you'll HAVE american jobs created since the current minimum waeg is unlivable.
138123
Around that time trade unionism began to take hold in Europe.  It was some decades later that unionism became established in the US.  A big concern with unions has always been worker safety and well being.
287346
If you mean, "do we no longer need labor unions in the US"...Well, I'd say the moment corporations ensure a reasonable wage that keeps up with inflation, safe working conditions, a fair work week with pay for overtime, access to group rates on health insurance and retirement plans (even if employee paid), occasional time off to care for sick family members, the opportunity to go away for 6 weeks to have a baby and still come back to work, and so on--all out of the goodness of their corporate hearts--then yeah, we can do without labor unions.  \n\nAnd the weather in hell today is...?
901698
Because American labor unions drove up wages to the point that American made goods are too expensive.  People who want to earn more need to improve their skills and education, not strike.
898034
No.  People have differing priorities, and differing work ethics.  Some work very hard to become educated, and then work very hard at their jobs.  They earn their higher standard of living.  Others choose not to pursue education at all,  but work extremely hard to compensate, and still do well.  Others choose to focus on having children, whether or not they can support them.  Some don't work at all.\n\nIn the USA, lifestyle is very much about choices people make in their lives.  Not everyone has the same range of choices, but it is still very possible to go from rags to riches, or at least comfort and security, purely because one works hard.  \n\nThere are far too many people ready and willing to simply exist, and let others do all the work.  They are already an unfair burden to society; your proposal would guarantee their numbers would increase dramatically.  Additionally, with no hope of reward, the inventive, pioneering, adventurous spirit of so many Americans, encouraged by our current society, would be suppressed, and oppressed, in yours.\n\nI'm not advocating money as God, or capitalism over democracy.  Socialism does have it's place, in certain applications.  A equal-for-everyone health care system, for instance, or a flat tax for all Americans over the poverty level, no exceptions, would do much to solve some of the problems we face today.  Extending it to an entire social system is doomed to failure, however, for the very simple reason that all people are not created equal when it comes to their willingness to work.  Those who won't do not merit the rewards of those who will.
729245
The best time for unions to go on strike is when the economy has either been doing extremely well, or if there's low productivity or if there's high inflation.  \n\nRecently productivity has hit a brick wall.  Call me cynical, but I think gas prices *will* go up significantly after the election.  I think we're going to be looking at a stagflation economy pretty soon.
841177
Looks like 3; national, regional and local (see ref.) Contrary to 1st answer, I think unions are essential to the fair functioning of the capitalist system. However, some regulation is essential to prevent corruption and monopolistic behavior. In other words, parasitic union officials shuld be tossed out, and union wages should not be allowed to become disproportionate with other, similar unionized work. How to do this fairly will no doubt be the subject of endless debate.\nBTW, why is this question in mathematics?
836262
Nope. Americans have it good, and they can have it better by working.
961709
The time is the present for labor unions to come back with a mission.  Labor unions try to bargain with companies for fair wage and working conditions.  It's come down now to try and  bargain to even keep the company in the U.S.  \n\nYears ago, before unions, workers were being treated unfairly and cruelly by corporations.  They made them work long hours without overtime.  They paid them meager wages.  They threatened them all the time and would treat their favorites much better than the others.  The workers had no benefits.\n\nWhen unions were formed, heads of corporations unwillingly were forced to bargain and and sign agreements to provide better working environments, better wages, and made to be fair with all employees.  There was a time when all workers went on strike, it rendered the corporation inoperable and they would lose money.  The benefit of labor unions is to ensure employees are treated fairly in the workplace and that is why we now have the Fair Labor Act.
327789
Absolutely, During the Reagan years I went to D.C. in support of the Air traffic controllers. Another time in D.C. for pro labor march. Several times with strike and other union related issues. They were good experiences and I am proud of my involvement.
1048772
Actually, billions of dollars a year in profits.  Wal-Mart (WMT) posted $11.39 Billion in net income (revenue - expenditure).  And yes, there have been studies shown that if Wal-Mart brought it's wages back up to industry standard, they would still be a very profitable company.\n\nHowever, unions are complicated and serve to differentiate workers from the general population, not serve the best interests of everyone.  And, unions are not the right answer for low-skilled/low-wage earners.  For instance, the reason why autoworkers have a powerful union is because Ford or Chevy can't just hire anyone off the street to build a car or operate machinery.  Nor can Delta grab one if it's passengers out of first class and have them fly a 747.  The more skilled and irreplaceable a worker, the more power unions have.  Wal-Mart and McDonalds pay their workers hardly anything because they have developed a system to where just about anyone can be thrown into a Wal-Mart or McDonalds and have all the training they would need to be an effective employee in a day or so.  Furthermore, there's less and less demand for low-skilled workers in today's global economy.  Typical low-skilled jobs in manufacturing have headed overseas, and if you don't posses the skills in today's world to succeed, you're out of luck.  Still, too many unskilled service jobs in the US remain underpaid.  But is that fair to low-skilled American labor?\n\nUnfortunately, I don't think it is.  It was recently reported that the drop-out rate in Los Angeles area high schools was as high as 25%.  While it's important to provide education for our nation's youngsters and propel them into workforce, children coming from well established backgrounds have a much, much better chance at succeeding.  Conversely, kids that come from 'the other side of the tracks' have a much much lower chance at succeeding and do not proceed into adulthood with the skills they need to earn a respectable living.  And to clarify respectable, I mean above the poverty line.\n\nGetting back to your question, the primary fault for low wages at McDonalds and Wal-Mart are not those companies’ policies.  They make the best possible financial decisions given the circumstances in which their business operates.  And, if it was in Wal-Mart's best interests to pay workers more, they would.  Management at Wal-Mart is paid very handsomely.  In order to make a difference and pull our nation's poor out of poverty, the government needs to intervene by increasing the minimum wage and punish companies that employ illegal hiring practices.  As it stands, the President and Congress would rather fill the coffers of American corporations with excess profits than provide help to those that need it the most: the working poor.  Just recently, Congress struck down legislation that would raise the minimum wage providing no help to many Americans that are struggling to make ends meet.  \n\nHow can we justify the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour?\n\nLet's take for example a couple with no children -- the most financially stable and well off household classification -- working full time at minimum wage levels.  Husband and wife combined would earn roughly $1600/mo..  For the sake of this example I am omitting any payroll taxes or other paycheck deductions.  Our couple lives in a 1-bedroom apartment that rents with utilities for $600/mo..  That leaves the couple 1,000 to spend on food, clothing, medicine, and transportation - necessities in life.  2 people eat roughly 180 meals a month, and at $3.00 a meal it is $540.  A montly bus pass in Los Angeles, and most major cities, is about $50/mo. per person, or $100/mo. for both.  So far, our theoretical couple has spent $1,240 of their $1600 budget.  That leaves $360 for health care, entertainment, clothing, household goods (toilet paper, soap, towels, TV), and retirement savings (even minimum wage earners aren't exempt from s
469533
Anyone here a member of a union.  The jobs they do, these are not jobs that no americans will do, busboy, valet, waiter, etc.  Maybe Americans want to be paid more but hey, when you have a minimum wage, that's to be expected.  \n\nPersonally, I know a lot of international people.  I hear a lot about their problems getting into this country.  To me, illegal immigration is like cutting ahead of all these great people.  Is that fair, hells no, life in mexico isn't great, but the people in mexico can't complain about anything.  They no nothing about hard life.  If we should allow illegal immigration on the basis of them being refugees, then there are millions in Africa who we should bring in first.  There are two ways of doing it, don't let anyone in illegally, or let everyone in.  And I think we would know what happens if we just opened the floodgates.    \n\nIf the people protesting really wanted to be here, wouldn't they have an american flag, not a mexican one.  I'm really sick of the racial preservation.  You want to be proud to be mexican, go be proud in mexico, because if you want to say you're proud to be mexico and you're illegal, you're saying that you're proud you grew up from such filth that you couldn't help but leave(but you still love being from there).
256633
When anyone has too much power it is a bad thing.  Unions were formed in America before there was a lot of government regulation in the work force.  Companies had ALL the power, and treated their workers horribly.  People decided that the best way to counter that was to form unions.  Today, I believe some unions have too much power, and should be disbanded because of that.\n\nBTW - We see the same problem in health care right now.  The people have no power.  Somehow intervention needs to take place to balance that.
621000
lol, I guess you have heard a response from a liberal, and I'll bet he is in a union.  I'm curious, how many times has he responded, "thats not my job!", when he is at work.  I'll refrain from telling the half a dozen negative stories regarding unions.\n\nAs for your answer, you seem to be making a point that in the middle is the way to go, which I agree with for the most part.\n\nYou say the right wing wants economic gaps.  I disagree with that.  The right, or conservative view, says if you work, you should be rewarded.  It is not a seperation of class, as you put it.  It is more about people doing something to better themselves, and be rewarded for it.\n\n The left wing, or liberals, aka. socialists, want to take what the workers have earned, and split it among everyone, including those who do not work.  These people do not work because they know that someone else will, and they will still get their share.  \n\nYou may often hear arguments such as, "ten percent of the people control 90% of the wealth".  I don't know how accdurate those numbers are, but I certainly am not one of those 10% of people.  I do know, however, that if I want a piece of that wealth, I can not sit on my butt and wait for my 'share' to get handed to me.  I have to go out and earn it.
442006
americans should be concerened about taking the good jobs and should not be worried about the crappy jobs.. seriously .. not a cop out