Plenty of information out there on unions and the role they play in our economy. This is esecially the case now that states are considering limiting their power to collectivly bargin.
There is a great recent Q and A piece. This is more
from a previous post. Enjoy
Ryan Lowry
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
I think one of the biggest problems of union's is when they prevent necessary change. For example, teachers union's are preventing from severely needed education reform.
In Washington D.C teachers were offered 122k a year if they got rid of tenure, and they chose to stick with their salaries of 56k. A few people are holding back reform that would benefit the youth and coming generations. In situations like this, union's are far too powerful and should not be resistant to change that is wanted by a majority.
I think limiting collective bargaining to police and firefighters in Wisconsin will become a great issue with the teacher unions. If striking is illegal, there is still the threat of it to push for their rights to be able to bargain. It's not a very fair consensus to allow teachers to bargain over wages, but not bargain over benefits. Having benefits is important to people because they provide stability to families, and when teachers will not have what they expect to get, it will create financial problems, which will increase the urge to strike.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra Bergeron
MWF 10-10:50
Unions hold a critical amount of power which they use to enforce worker rights and prevent abuse. The problem is when they use their power to extract benefits from their employers. Ideally, the power of the unions will balance with the power of the employer in order to prevent one side from taking advantage of the other. However, with their sheer numbers it is easy for unions to influence and sway what the employers do.
ReplyDeleteUnions are supposed to protect worker's rights and make sure that they aren't being taken advantage of. However, the fact that unions have infiltrated many government sector jobs to get better compensation is somewhat crazy. Public sector jobs already offer much better benefits to employees than the private sector usually. What else do the unions want? Believe it or not, governments can even run out of money. If unions keep asking for more and more, where does the money come from?
ReplyDeleteBargaining over wages and benefits is important, however, when public sector workers are making much more money than their private sector counterparts...the ones that pay the public workers, that should be questioned. I believe that is what the Wisconsin governor is trying to address
Anthony Fratto MWF 9-9:50
"In New York City, where public-sector union benefits have grown twice as fast since 2000 as those in the private sector, firefighters may retire after 20 years at half pay. Pension benefits for a new retiree averaged just under $73,000 (all exempt from state and local taxes). To top it off, retirees receive a health insurance policy that is worth about $10,000 annually."
ReplyDeleteFor over half of their lives they get more money than I will see until I am almost 30 years old. I'm sorry but although I have a huge amount of respect for firefighters, I think these are unfair benefits. It just isn't sustainable. Public sector unions are even more controversial than private sector unions because consumers have no say at all in the services they offer.
CMac
MWF 9-9:50
Abdullah Allen
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-950
I think it is ridiculous the amount of power they have. If they all decide to come together and strike even if it is going to hurt the economy, they still do it. When I think about striking I think about septa. I think that they strike for no reason sometimes. When they strike its inconvenient to the public. I feel like they already get paid enough and they have enough benefits that they should stop complaining and be grateful.
Nicholas Camaioni
ReplyDeleteMWF 9 - 10 AM
Out of all the topics we have been discussing in this class, the issue of the Unions is the topic that hits closest to home for me. As I've mention in previous posts, I work for a School District within Bucks County. The Teachers in my District have been working without a contract since June. Their Union and the School Board have been butting heads over negotiations for a new contract. The School Board wants the Teachers to pay more for their benefits while the Teachers want to remain paying the same amount despite the fact we are living in a tighter economy.
Due to this current struggle, the Support Staff (which includes Custodians, Maintenance, Secretaries, Bus Drives, and School Aids, just to name a few) is having to deal with the consequences of the Teachers butting heads with the School Board. We've been hearing rumors of our services being contracted out for wholesale prices for the last two years. The School District provides jobs for hundreds of people within and around the county. Mismanagement and wasteful spending has come full circle, and we're supposed to take the pink slips in order to fix this problem.
I may not always agree with the choices my Union makes or their policies. They make it damn near impossible to fire incompetent workers unless they make drastic mistakes, just for one example. Yet, without our Union, we'd probably already been in the unemployment lines looking for our handouts from the government. I do agree that reforms need to be made to unions, but I also feel they shouldn't be abolished completely.
Andrew Kearney MWF 10-1050
ReplyDeleteUnions have come to be more of a problem than asset to America and its economy. Like many people already mentioned, their power is far too high and needs to be controlled. From what I've seen, it appears that union "workers" don't really do all that much work. Unions are, in many respects, the ruination of America's workforce. In Philadelphia, a city that relies on its unions, their presence has hurt the economy. Also their benefits exceed that of most and need to be limited as well. Freely giving out such benefits only puts our nation in greater debt.
Bruce Chubb
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-10:50 AM
I Feel that most, if not all companies, should be required to allow unions to operate. Taking advantage of employees is incredibly easy considering that many people that find themselves working in the minimum wage bracket usually depend on that job for a main means of support. Often employers know and identify that are able to impose their will on the worker knowing that they will obey. More times than not, workers that are not in a union are not guaranteed hours, specific shifts and vacation time. Also, working without union backing can make it alot eaiser for an employee to be fired for there job without adequate explanation.
Unions are, and have been for the longest time, the front runner in protecting rights of the workers. People way to often in the workforce are mistreated and misrepresented. People who work in these labor jobs need a way for them to be able to work together in order to insure that they have a voice. In Wisconsin now the Governor is fighting that the unions are a major problem to the debt in the state, even after the union workers agreed to a cut in work hours and in their wages yet the fight still goes on. The fight now is over collective bargaining which is the major power that the unions hold to promote the well being of the workers. The workers essentially are being told that they will not have the ability to try and get increases in wages over time which is essentially putting them at the mercy of the businesses hands making their executive decision final. Another major problem for this is that it is the Republicans who are trying to trust bust the unions who generally support the Democrats except for the state troopers in Wisconsin who will not be effected by this. The state troopers supported the current Governor during the elections which essentially is taking power away from those who oppose him.
ReplyDeleteGreg Fuguet
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-11
To my limited understanding of the situation, it seems to me to be a balancing act. On one hand, I agree with what some people are saying, that unions are a necessary form of protection for laborers. On the other, the free market works to bring supply and demand to an equilibrium in a competitive market. It seems that in certain terms, these unions in the public sector have essentially created something of a monopoly of labor (or is that called a monopsony?). If they can adequately control that power, than they are, like DiSalvo says, "the 800 lb gorilla", able to bully their employers into salaries, benefits and pensions far beyond any kind of equilibrium point. This kind of overpowering is coming out of the State's wallet, and in a time where those wallets are running thin.
I'm not trying to say that workers should be voiceless and easily manipulated, but I also don't believe that they should be allowed to take advantage of the state in that way.
Samantha Anderson
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
If I was a worker I would certainly find a union job ideal. They offer great benefits and the constant reminder of protection from wage decreases or losses. However from the outside looking in I can really see the problem with unions. They can be overpowering and have a negative effect on the free market. Giving such great benefits are expensive, in combination with the relatively good wages union workers receive. The jobs in some cases are not difficult enough in my opinion to warrant such great benefits. This can contribute to the debts effecting communities all over the nation.
However, with all that said and done, if I was a union worker I obviously would not care about the debt, and want my benefits and good wages.
Zhao Liu
ReplyDeleteMWF 9 - 10 AM
I would say unions can be eliminated, however, the government sets standards for how much money and benefits that the companies have to pay to workers. That way the government is more efficient, the companies are bind to a certain degree of compensation to the workers, and the workers are not being abused. In this case, the government becomes a large union, and the companies will spend money lobbying the government rather than the small unions.
So what's the difference between my plan and the union plan? Well, first, the government will set a standard for everyone, so there will be less argument between the workforce and the company. Secondly, the unions will be going out of business, and that will increase the labor supply.
Control over collective bargaining shall not be eliminated, whether the power is in the hands of the government or the unions. Because the companies will abuse workers if they can because of the bottom line of making more money.