A question about Unions

[hughee99]

I was talking to a * supporter friend of mine the other day when we got on the topic of Unions. I'm not very familiar with their workings being in a mostly non-union field (software engineering). He was arguing that the biggest problem with Unions these days is that so many of them do what's in the best interest of the union itself, not in the best interest of the workers of the union. He cited that in the last election, about 40% of union workers voted for *, but 95% of the union money went to Gore. If repukes always do what's in their own best interests (screw everyone else) and 40% of them are voting against the union leaderships recommendations, are unions really looking out for the best interests of their workers? I don't know where he got the number 40% from, but I can't remember the last time any union was donating money to a repuke canidate. Anyway, I didn't know how to respond to it. I'm going to see him next week. Can anyone help me out with a counter-argument?

[el_gato]

1. republicans generally want workers to have no representation

so that they can easily be abused by management.

All that aside union members are not monolithic
in their voting.

As far as what is in the best interest of the
members I have not seen any option since Clinton like Bush
endorsed NAFTA.

All that aside, I would say he needs to prove his assertions
rather than you buying into everything he says as if it is fact.

[hughee99]

5. Assertions

His assertions are basically this:
1. A larger percentage of union members vote for repukes (he says 40%, I don't know if that's true) than the unions support repuke canidates (about 5%). I can believe that. I was talking to a Teamster friend of mine who agreed with that basic assertion.

2. Repukes always do what's in their own best interests. I tend to agree with that as well.

Conclusion:
If this is the case, then wouldn't you expect more union money to go to the repukes to reflect the interests of its members?

I'm not sure about the conclusion, but it sounds somewhat reasonable given the assertions. This is really bothering me that I somewhat agree with his conclusion.

[sangh0]

7. You should be bothered

I would be very bothered if I started changing my opinions because "some guy" made outlandish claims.

[info being]

8. You're allowing him to frame an argument

That's just one sliver of potential truth in the grand scheme of things. Your position, as a progressive, ought to be that...regardless of the specifics...its generally good when the less powerful unite to fight for an protect their interests. To the extent that a Union does not do this, you'd have to agree with him.

At any rate, the natural conclusion to his argument should be that the so-called unrepresented Union members ought to work hard to make the Union represent them more effectively.

[Hubert Flottz]

27. Because so far a Union Member's overtime won't go Bye, Bye,

like yours will very soon now, thanks to your appointed and anointed, SCABBY Daddy, GW Bush! That is, until all the contracts start to run out and then everyone will lose their OT pay at that stage of Bush's GAME! The people here in WV would still be living in the coal baron's Company owned house, shopping at the coal baron's "Company Store" where he owed his tired worn out at 35 year old SOUL! If they got sick they went to the company doctor and paid their co-pay with company money, the same kind of company money that they put in the plate at the company preacher's company church, where they prayed until Gawd finally sent John L Lewis and the United Mine Workers Of America to come and help them form a middle class in America!

Think about things like overtime pay, a lunch hour, a coffee break, a forty hour week, minimum wage, children going to school instead of going to work at nine years of age, health care for you and your family, OSHA to make sure your job location is a safe place to work every day, a pension plan, social security, and on and on! Think about your right to have and to own a little piece of the American Dream just like the guy who owns the company store has a right to have and to own the same! Think about the class system in America a hundred years ago, when there were only two classes of people, the poor and the rich! Think about how much better things have been after unionization in America,(1930s)for Everyone but the Most Wealthy Corporate Barons! Think about the Wealthy Corporate Barons who today almost to a man, support G W Bush and who would take America back to a two class system! A system without any worker's rights or any dream of a better tomorrow for the working taxpayer or his family!

The key word in all this IS, THINK! Don't let the wealthy worker's rights bashing corporate propagandists, THINK for you! The unions in America have spent their money with the betterment of EVERY Working American's lot in mind! The Unions have supported politicians who BEST support working people and it's as simple as that!

[Mountainman]

2. Union workers do not have to give money out of their check for campaigns

That is a repuke red herring. If they want to contribute they can. If the union backs Kerry and the union member supports Bush then he/she can opt out of the campaign contribution. They can also give money to Bush privately up to $2,000.

And IMHO any union that supports Bush is not doing anything in the best interests of it's members. The Republican party is staunchly anti worker, anti union, and anti working families.

[guitar man]

14. True

CWA v. Beck 1988

[Warpy]

3. yeah, they always whine about those union contributions

...but when it comes to enforcing labor law that protects the workers within the unions, the Democrats win every time. Democratic adminstrations have also been aggressive when it comes to taking down croooked union bosses, so organizational self preservation isn't the reson. Protection of the rights of their memebers in the workplace is.

40% of the union memebers may or may not have been so dazzled by the illusory promise of a tax cut that they voted for Chimp. Since we have a secret ballot and since exit polling is inadequate at best, this statistic would seem to be a mere extrapolation from the population in general, not a hard figure.

I've worked in union shops and nonunion shops, and I can say with complete conviction that a bad union is always better than no union. I gladly pay dues and allow the leadershp to use those dues to advance the cause of working people.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Absolutely!

It's this simple: Unions are not solely political entities. Period. They definitely still serve their constituency.

However, if your friend isn't satisfied, make him understand that just because 40% of the Union decided that they were going to vote based on issues other than those concerning the Union, that does not mean the Union should change its support. A Union's function is to support the goals of its membership, period. And it is very clear that George Bush is antithetical to those goals, as indicated by the overtime pay situation.

Make a long story short, not every member of the group has to stay in lock step with its groups actions. I know that will come as a shock to your fascist rethug friend, but people are allowed their own personal opinions.

[sangh0]

6. You broke the cardinal rule for arguing with Repukes

NEVER TRUST THEM!!!!!

If they tell you it's raining, go outside and check. If they tell you anything about anything, MAKE THEM PROVE IT!!!

When they tell you something about unions, don't make it YOUR JOB to prove them wrong. MAKE THEM PROVE it's true.

about 40% of union workers voted for *

Make them prove it! Tell them 95% of ALL union members voted for Gore because they knew what a horrible person Bush* is, and MAKE THEM PROVE IT wrong.

95% of the union money went to Gore

Make them prove it! Tell them only 40% of ALL union members voted for Bush* because they knew what a horrible person Bush* is, and MAKE THEM PROVE IT wrong.

I don't know where he got the number 40% from

Then make him show you, and when it turns out to be the RNC website (or any other website) tell him "They're just another bunch of Repuke liars, just like the Bush* admin" and then

MAKE THEM PROVE IT wrong

[hughee99]

10. Proof...

Rather than making him prove his assertions, I'd like to be able to make and prove a counter-argument. I agree that when making an argument, you should always be able to prove your claims, so I don't want to make my counter-argument by just questioning his facts.

[sangh0]

12. That's why you will not only lose

but waste a lot of time in doing so.

[July]

21. Don't you want to know if they're really facts?

If they're not, you may waste your time arguing against "facts," instead. Why do you take his assertions at face value?

[knight_of_the_star]

28. That doesn't work

When someone makes an assertion, for it to be a VALID assertion, the assertion MUST be proven to be true. Basic logic and critical thinking is BASED ON THIS. When you construct a logical argument, you MUST PROVE your premises. Period. If ANY premise is false, then the WHOLE argument is false unless you are denying hte antecedent, but that falsehood MUST be true.

[pinto]

9. Ask where all your friend's numbers come from. Sources for the data. ie:

40% of union members voted for Bush.
95% of union donations went to Gore.
Union leadership recommendations.
History of unions donating or not donating to RNC.

I have some suggestions, but would love to hear the data from the sources. Thanks.

[Trajan]

11. The issue of political actions by unions ...

Is an old one, and it is problematic ...

The philosophy of unionisation in general, is to do their utter BEST to provide the greatest return for the MOST workers through the power of collective representation ....

They do so by developing an adversarial relationship with management during collective bargaining negotiations ... It is adversarial in that management always acts in the interest of the companny alone and tries to reduce the amount of company resources paid out in wages and compensation: so the union must take the adversarial stance that ALL employees deserve the highest wages and compensation for their work .. It is also adversarial against the GOP who also promote LOWER wages and LOWER compensation for workers ...

THat is what a union does: It fights for the fair and generous compensation of ALL workers : GOP workers and Democrat workers alike ....

So: of course unions would ally themselves with like-minded organizations and political parties who also possess a drive to enhance the needs of WORKERS .... Hence their support for the Democratic Party .... It figures that GOP workers would complain about their representatives using its party ties to the Democrats to improve THIER lot against GOP efforts to restrict workers compensation ...

My argument against my right wing union brothers ...

> Give up ALL gains made by workers since FDR and then you can complain about union support of the Democratic Party ... THINK about how life would be without your union-bargained wages, compensation, and workplace rules ...

It is instructive to note that the GOP fought tooth and nail against the Child Labor Laws in the 20's ... They also resisted the 8 hour workday, the 40 hour workweek, overtime laws, and they continue to try to reduce the minimum wage to this day ....

[HFishbine]

13. Your friend has his facts wrong.

Regardless of his opinion, he has his facts wrong.

In 2000, 62% of union workers voted for Gore and 37% for Bush (1). He's closer on the money. 84% of union PAC money went to democrats (not Gore, specifically) and 16% to republicans (2). There are excpetions though, where locals gave more to repubs than dems. (3)

1) http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

2) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=P01&cycle=2004

3) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=P01&cycle=2004

[guitar man]

15. Hehe

I bet that 37% shrinks a hell of a lot this time around as a result of the outright butt-fucking the Shrub assministration has given the working people..

[hughee99]

17. Then his numbers don't really seem that far off.

He overestimated the union vote for * by 3% and underestimated the union contributions to repukes by 11%. Though the numbers are not exact, they still support his basic argument.

[guitar man]

24. Flawed argument

"He was arguing that the biggest problem with Unions these days is that so many of them do what's in the best interest of the union itself, not in the best interest of the workers of the union."

His argument is flawed from the standpoint that he is failing to recognize that the workers ARE the union. Unions are not owned by their leaders,they are democratic organizations where the leaders are elected. If the union believes thier LEADERSHIP is not acting in their best interest,they are free to fire them come election time.

If he is trying to argue that union members voting for *Bush is in their best interest,ask him to point out one single thing *Bush has done policywise that is pro-labor. He'll come up empty handed.

[AP]

16. Oops. Addressing wrong issue here.

I misread your statement. I leave my original answer, even though it doesn't answer the question.


How could unions be THE problem if profits are through the roof in the US over the last 30 years and wages have stagnated or dropped?

Clearly the problem isn't that the system doesn't create wealth. It creates a ton of wealth.

The problem is that all the wealth it creats shoots to the top of the income ladder.

In that sense, unions have failed miserably.

The point of unions was to ensure that economic and political power spread down and out. It did from the 40s to the early 70s, but it doesn't anymore.

Unions aren't the problem. They were once a solution to a problem, but capital got too powerful.

[cheezus]

18. software engineers should be unionized

I think the communications workers of america is the closest you're going to get. But with all the "offshoring" going on, I'd want labor to have some muscle to go up against the corporate wealth.

[cheezus]

19. Shareholders of stock voted 50-50 like everyone else

but who did the companies they own stock in give to?

And now the repubs want to limit union spending because not all union memembers agree. Jeez... like all of the shareholders of XYZ corp agree with XYZ's contributions either.

[beyurslf]

20. Just because union members vote for Bush or any other

Republican doesn't mean they are voting for the person who they think represents their work interest.

In the 2000 election, I met with union members as a representative of a someone running for Congress. I would meet with their local chapters to answer questions. I was never once asked by a member any question about out sourcing or other local legislation regarding union issues. (There were 2 or 3 bills in the state house related to union issues.)

Instead, I was always asked about my candidates position on gun control. Then I was asked his position on gay rights and marriage. (I think it is becuase I am gay and they knew it.) And finally, the all important abortion questions.

They would vote against any union supporting candidate if they thought their guns were at risk. Better to be able to shoot a stranger than feed your family, I guess.

[hughee99]

23. Confused again

If gay rights and guns are not important to the union itself (and gun issues would be relevant to the police union), then why were those the issues that were discussed. This is sort of my friends point. The union is making its decisions, not based on what is best for their particular group, but on other issues that are not relevent to the members job. His argument was that shouldn't a unions main and only goal to help the members of the union in a work related area. The issue for gay rights, for example. If 63% the union is in favor of it, and 37% against it, is it really the unions job to advocate on this issue, or since there is some disagreement within the union, and it is not a work-specific issue? Shoulnd't they just remain politically neutral on it?

[guitar man]

26. union members vs. "card holders"

In any union job,you have people who are actual interested members and then you have "card holders". The card holders are the ones who "just work there" and don't really get involved or much care about the union one way or the other. These are the ones who would most likely be looking at other issues and interests outside of their union and job interests when voting.

Also,I know of some high end union occupations like airline pilots bought into the *Bush tax-cut scheme because of their 6 figure incomes.

It isn't as black and white as some people might try to make it though.

[Salviati]

22. I think that the biggest hole in his arguement is what is the definition..

... of "best interest"?

If you're talking about economic best interest, that's one thing. The union, ideally, is looking out for the best interests of its members economically speaking.

Though the economic interest of someone is a powerful factor in deciding how to vote, it is not the only one, particularly when people are doing reasonably well and feeling comfortable.

Someone may vote against their own economic best interests if they feel that it is more important to restrict abortion.

Someone may vote against their own economic best interests if they feel that it is more important to have their federal income tax cut by a pittance.

Someone may vote against their own economic best interests if they feel that it is more important to write who can and cannot get married into the constitution.

There are a number of reasons why someone might vote against their own economic best interest, making your friends argument a lot more complicated than they would suggest

[hughee99]

25. Good points.

I was thinking in strictly economic terms.

[Redleg]

29. How does your friend know what the majority of union members want?

Is he listening to Rush and Hannity again?

I have taught labor relations for 4 years and have never seen anything to suggest your friend is right. If what your friends says is true, why then don't the majority of union members vote to decertify their union if it doesn't serve the members' interests? The Labor-Management Relations act (Taft-Hartley) has provisions for doing this.

[Lefty48197]

30. Your friend has his head up his ass

Unions do what is best for their membership. They fight for better wages and better working conditions for the members.(in the most dangerous occupations, by the way). Unions have led the fight for health and retirement benefits for their members.
The corporations did not just give away these benefits. They had to be wrested out of them through contract negotiations.
Union contractors have led the nation in improving the lives of their members and their families.
Union members typically make about 25% more than their non union counterparts. Does your friend think that extra money doesn't benefit their families? What is he? A moran? How in the hell can he claim that the unions AREN'T doing what is best for their members? That just goes to show you how dumb right wingers are.
The right wingers in this country have declared war upon the unions, because of the wage and benefit rates that they win. The Republicans are constantly fighting against higher wages. They even fight against raises in the minimum wage.
The 40% number is probably correct. In addition, the Republicans are sometimes able to buy the endorsements of this union, or that union.
But, clearly it's the Democratic politicians who help the unions and it's the Democratic candidates, that the union members overwhelmingly support. For the unions to support Republicans would be suicide. The Republicans would disband the unions instantly, and repeal all the contracts, and force crappy ones down the throats of the workers (IF they were able to get their utopian dream) For your friend to even suggest that unions should support Republican candidates, because of that misled 40% is foolish.