The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Realistically, the day of the union is probably over for the most part. By that I mean unions will not enforce change. Many management teams prefer to deal with unions, and for that reason they will not disappear entirely.

The demise of the union has mainly to do with the enormous power of the ruling class. In manufacture, in a global base economy, there are just too many options.

Middle class? Yeah there will still be one. It just won't include labor forces that much. Will there be impacts later, as in unrest? revolt? revolution? Possible. An American Spring? Hmmm. I doubt it, somehow. Is the government we all complain about just there to control the working class and give just enough benefits to prevent unrest? Very possible.

There are examples in many industries where unions have either chartered or bailed out corporations.

One reason that prohibits that is the same reason that some people work w2 and complain about their payroll taxes instead of going LLC and contracting. It's not their sweet spot, if it were easy to do so, anyone would do it, right? That's like asking an agent why he doesn't play pro bowl WR since he thinks he's so "knowledgeable".

Quote:It's not their sweet spot, if it were easy to do so, anyone would do it, right?

That's sort of my point.

Business owners would be fine without unions. Unions without "big business"....not so much.

I grew up with this stuff, and have been around it all my life. It's like religion. Most union folks demonize business owners. The hand that feeds them.

And they claim "to be for the working man". Until a working man wants a chance to work for a wage that's lower than what a union negotiates. Then they're ready to cut your throat out.

That's anectdotal, and what I expected, I heard that slant quite often. I have a unique perspective with this subject.

I grew up with it too, the fights over Thanksgiving dinner between the business owners and the Union people were for the ages. My dad went from one to the other in his life, retired with a pension and told me when I was a kid that those opportunities would be long gone, I had better get my lilly white rear in school where I'd at least have a fighting chance. Famous Teamsters? Met them, he was on a first name, "on retainer" basis with "the kid" who runs the roost right now. You have NO IDEA how much I grew up with this.

Business owners may be fine without unions on the micro scale, but I am not so sure about that macro wise. Not so sure that should be the discussion. Are working class Americans better off without the unions might be the talking point. We're experiencing that as an economy right now, nobody here making enough money to buy the goods. We're in doldrums with no end in sight. Bummer.

Let's ask UPS what they think of their union rank and file. Are they getting crushed by Fed Ex and blaming the unions? There are other examples as well, it's not that cut and dried as those old 70's arguments.

(01-27-2014 11:49 AM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  Realistically, the day of the union is probably over for the most part. By that I mean unions will not enforce change. Many management teams prefer to deal with unions, and for that reason they will not disappear entirely.

The demise of the union has mainly to do with the enormous power of the ruling class. In manufacture, in a global base economy, there are just too many options.

Middle class? Yeah there will still be one. It just won't include labor forces that much. Will there be impacts later, as in unrest? revolt? revolution? Possible. An American Spring? Hmmm. I doubt it, somehow. Is the government we all complain about just there to control the working class and give just enough benefits to prevent unrest? Very possible.

I think that last sentence is the best one I've read on this board in quite a while. I absolutely believe this to be true.

Quote:Are they getting crushed by Fed Ex and blaming the unions?

I'm not blaming unions for anything. If you (anyone) belong to a union and are making more money and better benefits than the market would otherwise dictate...good for you!!!

But.....with respect to "talking points", lets not pretend that "unions are for the working man".

They exist for the rank in file. Many times at the expense of the person that wants to be a working man.

You can call my insights "old 70's arguments".

But they're not just arguments. I've been a dues paying member of 3 different unions.

Like government. BAM.

They do provide a service to the people that they represent. Although the value may be waning these day. I know I was raised by a man who believed in adding value and had very little patience with people not pulling their weight and acting entitled. He was rare that way, and I see it's different now.

Again, it's not that cut and dry.

Unions did start out "for the working man" back in the day. There was a reason as I tried to point out and obviously failed earlier.

I think the pendulum has swung the other way. I am a free market man, let the chips fall where they may, that goes for all unions. Nobody has ever represented me (very well) except for....me.

Quote:There was a reason as I tried to point out and obviously failed earlier.

No....I got it :)

Quote:Q. How has the middle class fared?

A. Not well. Median household income peaked in 1999 at $56,080, adjusted for inflation. It fell to $51,017 by 2012. The percentage of American households with income within 50 percent of the median — one way of measuring the middle class — fell from 50 percent in 1970 to 42 percent in 2010

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealth-gap...57223.html

(01-27-2014 12:49 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Unions did start out "for the working man" back in the day. There was a reason as I tried to point out and obviously failed earlier.

Unfortunately today unions are a big business themselves with union leaders acting like corporate leaders. Their highest priority is to the organization and themselves.

Meanwhile the working man is left in the dust. Seriously, does a union president making several hundred thousand dollars a year really care about the man on the factory floor? Or is he more interested in protecting the union bureaucracy and the status quo of the leaders?

(01-27-2014 04:35 PM)Broncobelt Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 12:49 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Unions did start out "for the working man" back in the day. There was a reason as I tried to point out and obviously failed earlier.

Unfortunately today unions are a big business themselves with union leaders acting like corporate leaders. Their highest priority is to the organization and themselves.

Meanwhile the working man is left in the dust. Seriously, does a union president making several hundred thousand dollars a year really care about the man on the factory floor? Or is he more interested in protecting the union bureaucracy and the status quo of the leaders?

I know a leader of a union, met him more than a few times, who took a paycut from being a successful workmans comp attorney to complete his dad's legacy.

(01-26-2014 11:09 PM)BCBronco Wrote:  

Quote:Corporations that struggled more often got replaced. American Motors, Kodak, Sunbeam, Eastern Airlines, etc. Union leadership continued to cash in but their membership has paid a steep price. And it continues.

U assume these companies are gone due to unions, rather they are gone due to poor products, poor management, misreading the market, foreign competition, and so on. To blame their demise on labor is simplistic and narrow.

Your world view is stimulating you to jump to conclusions. My point was specific to product/management not workers or unions, period.

Back to the point about accountability in the market place raised in the article and agreed to by several of us. Yourself included.

It cuts both ways. Unions "now a days" is big bidness. The folk at the top get the lion's share. 'Cept they dont make anything and only risk their rank and files capital.

UAW for years had presence on the board of GM. Thoughts?

Right on cue :)

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/1...abor-union

Wonder if this issue will cost NW any football recruits?

(01-27-2014 06:04 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:09 PM)BCBronco Wrote:  

Quote:Corporations that struggled more often got replaced. American Motors, Kodak, Sunbeam, Eastern Airlines, etc. Union leadership continued to cash in but their membership has paid a steep price. And it continues.

U assume these companies are gone due to unions, rather they are gone due to poor products, poor management, misreading the market, foreign competition, and so on. To blame their demise on labor is simplistic and narrow.

Your world view is stimulating you to jump to conclusions. My point was specific to product/management not workers or unions, period.

Back to the point about accountability in the market place raised in the article and agreed to by several of us. Yourself included.

It cuts both ways. Unions "now a days" is big bidness. The folk at the top get the lion's share. 'Cept they dont make anything and only risk their rank and files capital.

Quote:As DB noted, unions emerged due to sub-human sweatshop conditions with no end in sight. The role of unions in bargaining for a living wage helped raise the standard of living for all of us, thus facilitating a middle class. Do you really think that would have happened without the countervailing force of organized labor? The history of robber barons tells us no.

If any of those robber barons at NW want to give one of my step-kids an education at their school in exchange for participating in college athletics, WE'RE IN !!!

(01-28-2014 03:09 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:As DB noted, unions emerged due to sub-human sweatshop conditions with no end in sight. The role of unions in bargaining for a living wage helped raise the standard of living for all of us, thus facilitating a middle class. Do you really think that would have happened without the countervailing force of organized labor? The history of robber barons tells us no.

If any of those robber barons at NW want to give one of my step-kids an education at their school in exchange for participating in college athletics, WE'RE IN !!!

If you're step kids are good enough they will.

Interesting charts. Wished they would have noted where the old goal of being a millionaire fits on the chart.

Wealth distribution In America