Should an individual be required to join a labor organization?
Posted by | Posted in Society Debates
photo taken from gmu.edu
Should an individual be required to join a labor organization?
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
We just installed a new spellcheck feature. While you are typing, all words that are underlined in red could be misspellings.
lol! totally right on! 
Yes, so that their rights are protected. A lot of people need to wake up and join an organization that is going to protect them.
They don't do anything, so why give them money?
Required? What an invasion of personal privacy and the right to work wherever one pleases! Should the option be there? Certainly.
Labor unions have a bad reputation, quite deservedly. They often take advantage of businesses- people who are part of a union cannot be fired, cannot take a pay cut (no matter how much they deserve those two things), and businesses often get hit badly by the pay they have to give union members.
Unions were formed during the 'robber baron' era- an era that is misnamed, in my opinion. The unions were formed to help poor Irish and German immigrant workers who did not speak English. Back then, corrupt factory owners were taking advantage of these people, and unions were needed. Nowadays, we have no need for such organizations. If someone does not like what their job is, they can quit and find another, or start their own business!
Of course, government regulation has hurt even the job business. Employers are required to do so much that they have to pay their employees less. Former employees cannot just start a business as they once could. Employers cannot fire/pay-cut their workers without government regulations getting in the way- no matter how much the said employee deserves it.
We do not the government requiring people to join a union. We should not have the government requiring anything of either employees or employers- the employee-employer relationship can deal with a lot, if you just let it work. I doubt very much that nowadays, an employer could get away with paying 25 cents to his workers, since people complain when they get minimum wage (another system I disagree with, but that's another debate.
)
Yea but companies screw labor workers over all the time.
And the employees are free to quit if they feel they are getting a bad deal. It's called workers rights.
By screw over, I meant fire out-of-the-blue. If all workers joined a union, companies can't mess with them and with more workers, there is less screwing over.
with more workers in the union, there is less screwing over.*
No one should be required to do anything, let people make their own decisions.
Yea, but we say that and everyone is all equal and free, then when they get screwed over, they come running to lawyers and drain the corporations out of their revenue, making it harder for the management to keep as many employees.
You need to have a Union representative to ensure that you don't get the boot in the first place. Everyone wins.
But unions are unfair to the employers. Let's not forget the employer in all this. I have never met an employer who would just fire his employees out of the blue- he can't if he's to make money. There are many, many reasons he fires employees- generally either incompetence or money troubles, and most will make known to their employees WHY. But unions shut down this relationship between employer and employee, making it full of hazards for both employer and employee.
But why shouldn't employees 'get the boot'? What if they're doing abad job and causing the employer money? The employer is FULLY within his or her rights to fire that individual, without regard to a higher power. It's just that people are so sue-happy nowadays that they can't- that and the government has gotten so involved in everything. Unions are not needed nowadays.
Well, sometimes they deserve to be laid off, but sometimes, it's just plain out for the money. In New York, things get ugly.
You might want to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090...
Who is requiring people to join? The government? Not a good idea. The union? Also not a great idea. The company? A rather dumb company in my opinion…
I have no problem with people collectively bargaining for their rights, wages, or benefits through a union. This has proven in the past a sensible way to attain benefits and wage increases for middle class workers. It is not the only means of doing so, there are lots of employers who will pay better wages than union work would to entice a better quality of production.
I however do not feel this bargaining position entails a monopoly over every worker of a company. If a worker wishes to enter into a private bargaining position instead, presumably one which they feel is to their advantage, then they should be free to do so. There are advantages to a union in the form of external benefits it provides to people who are not members. But these still do not qualify as a guarantor of an individual worker's rights and demands.
Here is my take on this;
During my working life, if I did not like the way my employer was treating me(pay, etc.), then I found another job. As you can guess, I am anti-union.
If we all had the attitude that if we are not treated fairly by our employers we would leave that place of employment for one that did treat us fairly, then there would be no reason for a union to suck up our hard earned money and drive good employers out of business.
That is just wrong, and stupid. I mean, seriously! Why are those people still getting paid?! (Oh of course. They belong to unions, so they can't be fired.) That makes me so mad.
Agree totally.