Not ALL do.  I worked for a Union (partially) company.  We never broke a union.  But I can guarantee you that the stores in the same market that were not unionized got paid higher than the union ones did.

"Not ALL do.  I worked for a Union (partially) company.  We never broke a union.  But I can guarantee you that the stores in the same market that were not unionized got paid higher than the union ones did."

That is correct Not all do. There were a few in my industry that did the same. Mainly to keep the unions out, so they would adjust things as the union contracts changed, but also most of them were subsidiaries of larger corps. so there was no benefit to having a union administer plans. Things vary amongst industries so there are situations where unions aren't worthwhile and others where they are.

I think you are missing the main point, you have no say in how the money is spent politically.

There's no such thing as a perfect organization--labor, capital, religion, or governance--but you measure the benefits of being a member. Relative to unions the right to work is bogus, if a worker still benefits from the organization:it's called a free ride, which is as bad as scabbing.

Last I checked, Scabbing was a sign of healing.

If it wasn't for scabs, Milwaukee would be in a garbage disaster right now because the biggest garbage collection company's  workers are on strike.  Thank goodness for scabs!

Why should I be forced to pay a bunch of union thugs but have no voice in the union?  Like most union tactics, it is extortion.

Look at what Union did to the auto industry, took a bunch of yahoos for the most part worth around the normal 15 an hour, payed them exorbitant sums, now the industry is broken, not just because they cannot keep up with the quality of Japanese cars but even while broken the Union is demanding more money, Unions do not care if they bleed their "victims" to death, as long as they get more money.

IMO if you strike then you should be liable to lose your job, and unions should instead focus on lobbying government (if they believe health+safety laws are insufficient, for example), working with the employer to improve things for both sides, and being able to resort to 'work-by-rule' action as a method of applying pressure on the employer. Their existence distorts the market however by preventing firms from reducing wages (and in many cases forcing them to increase them at a certain percentage), as well as often resulting in higher wages than in non-unionised workforces. The problem with this of course is that you have fewer jobs, and more demand for them, and a much less flexible wage system for employers. Thus I see unions as typically selfish organisations that rob the poor to give from the rich so to speak (since they're imposing severe financial pain on the few made unemployed so that they benefit from higher wages than they otherwise would've had).

That's the point, if they all did that you would have even more unemployed, hence robbing from the poor to give to the rich - you inflict severe penalties on a few people (no income) so that you can get a slightly higher income. A decent paying job is one which pays the market wage, hence you don't need a union for it.

All levels of business are just as important as any other.  If one isn't doing their job, all of the levels suffer.  There is no reason to romanticize or make heroes out of any links in a long chain.  They all have their part to play, and all have to work or there is no work to be done.

And the greatest irony?  Big Labor supports illegal immigration!  Is there any more proof that unions do not have their members interests at heart?  WHy join a union, if your own dues are going to be used to reduce your wages?

You sure know how to scrape my scab!   

The clowns in washington may have a D or R behind their names, but the issues they support are not so easily pigeon holed.  I just wonder how long it is going to take REAL union members to chuck the democrats under the bus.

We have heard (and I do believe) that one of the biggest proponents of illegal immigration are the "fat cat CEOs" that want cheap labor.  Yet the party they supposedly belong to is solidly (at least the rank and file) against it.  IN contrast, the democrats should be against illegal immigration because their rank and file suffer from it - yet the party leadership is one of the biggest proponents.

Which just goes to show that most people dont really think before going into the voting booth.

See docG you nailed it, the rank and file mean nothing to the Democrats, it's the top of the Union that matters because they are the ones that decide where the money flows to and USUALLY it flows into the pocket of Democrats up for re-election or Election period. Don't forget there are strings attached to the money too!