Do you think congress should pass laws to strengthen unions in America?

Answer 1

I am a card carrying inactive member of the UFCW. I do not believe that in recent years that the unions have been supportive of the workers they claim to represent. I came to see the union as a pyramid scheme that enriched those at the top and did little to nothing for those who paid the dues.

The fact that the unions support illegal immigrants just drives my point home. Regardless of what position you take on immigration you cannot deny that it lowers the wages of blue collar workers. This would seem to be completely against what unions should stand for; but they just want the extra dues.

The answer is no; the government should not help the unions until they clean up their act. There will be no help from the government with a closely divided house and a Republican President.

Answer 2

There already ARE laws to protect unions. The difference, really, is whether those laws are actually enforced, which makes a huge difference.

If people are actually free to associate with each other, to try to get better protections, then the laws are fine. If the employer can simply fire someone for trying to organize, or for protecting the rights of workers, then Unions will never work.

Unions have never wanted anything more than a level playing field. They want to try to organize members -- not on company time -- without fear of retribution by employers.

Now, employers HATE unions. As long as there are not unions, they do not have to even CONSIDER things like -- health insurance for workers. Or a living wage. But with a union, they have to be considered.

BUT WAIT, say the naysayers. This means that the workers get TOO much power. Wrong. Under any system, if the employer and the union cannot agree, then the union can strike, but the employer can then replace each and every member with a non-union member, and is NEVER required (unless he agrees) to re-hire the union workers.

On the other hand, that means re-training his workforce. There is strength in numbers, which the unions recognize, and employers appreciate.

While the average wage for workers in America has actually DECREASED under G. W. Bush, the income for top executives has increased. They are making their profits by moving operations overseas, and by cutting workers benefits and income here. The time is ripe for Unionization, but it cannot happen unless at least the existing labor laws are enforced.

Answer 3

No. Unions are not the answer, and if corporations treated their employees well, they could do away with them altogether. The only reason unions persist is because corporations don't treat their employees fairly on their own, and unions are the unfortunate result of that reality.

I see unions creating an antoganistic relationship between employer/employee when it isn't necessary. If the employees were happy with mgmy, what would they need the union for? A union keeps the employees unhappy and dependent to keep getting their dues. It also encourages employees to do the bare minimum to keep their jobs. An employee doing more than is specifically spelled out in the contract is frowned upon, and what would be the difference anyway, as seniority is the only way to the top-nevermind excellence--that is a real disservice to employees and employers.

Answer 4

No. Labor unions had their day. Now people understand their wages go to support the unions and they get little back in return.

Employees should have the choice of whether they join a union or not and in many cases cannot because they want to work at a closed shop. Unions don't help employees, they just siphon money from their paychecks. The reasons unions were created, employee safety and fair wages, are decades in the past. OSHA handles safety and the free market dictates wages. It's time to let labor unions rest in peace.

Trade unions, such as Iron Workers or Electricians in the IBEW, are a different story. The provide a means to match employers with qualified employees who meet minimum standards of training.

Answer 5

Yes. People who say no tend to have no historical knowledge. The most ignorant comment I hear in this regard is the "Unions aren't needed anymore" canard.

If you like weekends, vacations, the minumum wage, workman's compensation, employer provided health insurance, child labor laws, workplace safety laws, the eight hour day (I could go on) then you should know unions are responsible.

If you think unions are passe then wait 15 years after they're gone. You'll lose all the benefits I mentioned above and there won't be anyone to fight for them...until the next organizer gets busy.

Answer 6

No. They can make laws protecting unionization, which they have done in the past. Unions are as strong as they need to be.

Answer 7

I am a Southerner,Many Southerners don't put unions in high regard..No.laws should not be passed to strengthen them..protect yes.that's fine. but not give them more power then they already have.This is a capitalist country.people in business have the right to do what they wish with their company,within reason.Unions degenerate usually,into a self serving entity.

Answer 8

No, union's strengths are based on how they treat their members. If they treat their members well and provide them with opportunities for good paying jobs then their ranks will swell and they become more powerful. If they do a poor job for their members their ranks will decrease as the affected members look for different opportunities to improve their lives.

Answer 9

NO...what are you nuts??? The unions have become the downfall of our way of life. Why do you think the products you buy cost so much? UNIONS!

Answer 10

You mean labor unions? No.