2006-09-01 10:47:08 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
While the urgent need for jobs and health care goes unaddressed, the Bush administration is targeting unions with new financial reporting rules that are absurdly burdensome and designed to soak up union resources so the administration's corporate, anti-worker agenda can move forward.
You think corporate scandals cry out for new rules? Apparently the Bush administration disagrees and thinks unions are a much bigger threat. The proposed new rules for unions go far beyond what is required of corporations or other not-for-profit groups.
Why is the Bush administration--which is rolling back health and safety standards, overtime regulations and the Family and Medical Leave Act--opposed to regulations except when they cover working people and the poor?
Republicans oppose labor unions because the suppression of labor laws and unions is one of the 14 characteristics of a fascist dictatorship.
2006-09-01 11:02:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Which rights? The right for one employee to sit on his *** while being paid because he is waiting for someone else do a job that he can't do because of contract restrictions? The right to prevent an employer from running his business efficiently so that he can pay the outrageous wages the union has negotiated. The right to refuse to do a job and not have to suffer the consequences? How about the right to bankrupt a company? I've had considerable experience with labor unions having been a member of three of them. While I wont deny there were SOME necessary changes brought about by labor unions in the past, over the last 30 years they have done little more than cause the loss of jobs. I've seen this with my own eyes. I've seen local union officers who used their positions to get special treatment for themselves while neglecting representation for other members. I've seen the union create such a feeling of animosity between labor and management that the two could hardly exchange a hello. I have also worked in non union shops. I found it much easier to get along with management. For a person who sincerely comes to work to work the rewards are much better than with a union. If there was some grievance I had, I could go directly to the owner and discuss it. They never failed to listen, and almost without exception always acted to remedy the problem. The wages were better and the benefits comparable to the union companies as well. Of course all the employers haven't been good. I have told a boss off and walked out the door when he was unreasonable....but there were other jobs. Often times union members and the union hierarchy get the attitude that they "own" the job. Whatever happened to the guy with an idea who puts in his sweat, long hours, and fortune into creating a business. He needs help so he offers the public jobs. Shouldn't he have the right to decide how the job is done and what he's able to pay for it? Should any group have the right to interfere with this businesses operations if the owner doesn't give into the groups demands? Who does own the business? It is this failure to recognize rights of ownership that really makes me resent unions. The international unions have become big business in themselves. I watched salaries for representatives of one major union triple over the course of about 5 years. Who pays those salaries? The union members do, and in many cases they had no choice. I have seen an industry ruined and cities turned into ghost towns because workers were making 3 times what the national average was for comparable work. I'm not a business owner and I'm not a wealthy man. To me it comes down to a matter of fairness. The mostly republican business owners I have known have not been greedy misers or cruel slave drivers. Most treat you like partners in the business and just expect you to give a fair days work for a fair days pay. I guess it comes down to your personality. Some people think only about what benefits them and getting the most for the least effort. Others look at a job and appreciate the person who provided it and do what they can to make that business successful. The latter are what I see as the majority of republicans...not the corporate elite. In fact many of the very wealthiest of these elite are democrats. This old idea that the republicans are the party of the rich and the democrats are the party of the working class is rubbish. Just more hype that the liberal democrats want everyone to think.
2006-09-01 11:51:18 · answer #2 · answered by RunningOnMT 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
the authentic situation with unions is the actual undeniable reality that they are getting too efficient. they could just about dictate business enterprise coverage to the leaders of a business enterprise, even if it really is interior the most proper interest of the business enterprise or no longer. The monetary problems at each and every of the significant American vehicle producers and countless the airways should be traced to pension plans that unions compelled businesses to initiate that are a concepts too huge for any business enterprise to have the funds for. Unions do serve an significant objective, retaining the rights of workers, yet there desires to be a stability of ability between unions and company administration the position both can paintings mutually for the standard strong quite than each and every operating for his or her personal strong.
2016-10-15 22:34:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This goes back to the idea that Repulicans, post FDR, are 'big business' people. I took a course on unions and labor orgs, and the interesting thing now is that unions have lost alot of power over the years and are more or less seen in a negative light by most people, let alone the Republicans. Laws and competition have more or less driven away alot of bad working conditions....of course there are exceptions.
2006-09-01 10:50:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
... because, as everyone has said, it means they have to pay those workers in the Union a living wage... profits go down 5 percent so that people can afford to buy a house...
did anyone notice that America became a super power not long after unionization started? coincidence? I mean without it we would just be another third world nation where the top 1 percent controls 90 percent of the wealth...
if the unions go away... pay rates would drop for about 75 percent of America... slowly at first... but they would...
2006-09-01 10:59:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Unions take your $$ and don't protect your rights. They break companies. A prime example is a aluminum mill in a little town in Ohio. The people were making from 14 an hour to 23 an hour. The people who were getting to old to do their job would not quit and they couldn't be fired. They were ready for their retirement funds but wouldn't quit. The company finally shut down and now they aren't working, The jobs are few and far. A company is in business to make $$ not to give it away. They weren't making $$ because of the Union so now nobody's working! That's why I don't like Unions!
You ever been to Detroit into a car factory where on the dock they have 4-5 guys playing basketball 1 working. Yea! Unions are great,That's why our automobile industry is going to hell!
I guess all those thumbs down means YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
2006-09-01 11:13:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
Unions protect the interests of workers, which often go against the interests of major corporations. The Republicans (especially these current ones) care nothing for human beings, all they care about is MONEY. Their friends are often times the CEO's of these corporations, and the corporations pay them lots of money to protect their interests. This has been painfully obvious from the minute Bush stepped into office. I mean, Bush could not be further away from "The Working Man" if he tried!
2006-09-01 10:54:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
They naively believe that everything will be most efficient if the corporations are left to operate as they please. According to Republican philosophy, wages will rise as companies compete for workers. This doesn't work in reality, though. The companies will do whatever it takes to maximize short-term profits, and that means keeping wages and benefits as low as they can get away with. It's like revisionist historians who insist that slavery wasn't so bad because it was in the interest of slaveholders to keep slaves well fed and happy. Obviously that's a load of bull. Most companies (not all) will do whatever it takes to maximize productivity and minimize overhead costs. Unions are necessary to counterbalance this tendency.
2006-09-01 10:56:00 · answer #8 · answered by banjuja58 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Unions have many good features, however, they back a lot of crappy causes. Teacher's unions, for example, put a lot of money toward immoral causes. Even if you don't support the cause personally, you're still required to pay dues towards it. That's wrong.
2006-09-01 10:52:17 · answer #9 · answered by TiM 4 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Unions take too much control and are bad for the economy as a whole. Look at the problems of the big 3 automakers for one.
2006-09-01 11:06:54 · answer #10 · answered by slyry75 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋