Example of why I'm anti-union and probably can't support even the most moderate Democrats

Feb 2011
17,276
6,251
Boise, ID
This is a story (in the news recently) of two unions (IBEW and ILWU) squabbling with each other over work each one felt exclusively entitled to, and threatening the employer (ICTSI) if either one didn't get their way.

The employer eventually had to let one of them do the work, and when it did, the other made good on its threats and began economically sabotaging the employer, slowdowns, secondary boycotts, etc.

An administrative law judge, the NLRB, and a federal court all agreed this sabotage is considered illegal. The federal court ended up penalizing ILWU by an amount several times its total assets, potentially bankrupting the union. This is when it started making national news headlines.

One could say "well the courts did their jobs, justice was served, so what's the problem?"

The problem I continue to have is that moderate Democrats like Buttigieg and Biden, let alone the radically pro-labor ones like Sanders and Warren who basically want to repeal Taft Hartley and apparently want to make unions immune from all laws, have all expressed strong support for these tactics (see links). They seem to want to let unions do literally whatever the fuck they want. It is unabashed organized crime-like activity, is the literal definition of militant cartel tactics, it's economically toxic, and even mutually self-destructive for unions most of the time (e.g., the employer in this case abandoned the facility because of its huge losses from these tactics).

The second problem I have is that the liberal(est) media (e.g., Salon and In These Times) look at this situation and what do they do? They attack the employer (see links), despite across-the-board legal/court agreement the employer was severely wronged by these illegal union tactics. Doesn't matter. The far-left media, acting as foot soldiers for Big Labor, will always, always, always attack the employer/company. The linked article above swiftly bypasses all the specifics of the case, simply calling it "complicated," and proceeds to quote union minions accusing all the courts of being "employer friendly" and on a war path to bankrupt unions, and suggest this entire case was simply an example of a multi-national company deciding it felt like busting some unions. This stuff is absolute garbage.

This was a case of two unions fighting with each other over work each one wanted, and each holding a gun to the employer's head over the squabble. How are we supposed to do business in this country if tactics like this are even allowed, much less encouraged (by union puppet Democrats)? I don't know what I'm going to do come November, but the idea I could put my support behind a Democrat voicing support for the union side in examples like this, I can't imagine it.
 
Jul 2014
42,329
11,772
midwest
Unions were good for workers back in the day.

Now...not so much.

There are plenty of workplace laws in place to protect workers.

The so called "leadership" of many large unions is so corrupt nowadays...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leaf Aricsun
Oct 2019
4,868
1,851
International Falls, Minnesota
Unions were good for workers back in the day.

Now...not so much.

There are plenty of workplace laws in place to protect workers.

The so called "leadership" of many large unions is so corrupt nowadays...
That's what happens to every organization that outlives its purpose. Corruption.
 
Jul 2014
42,329
11,772
midwest
That's what happens to every organization that outlives its purpose. Corruption.
Yep, look no further than Congress for a great example of a corrupt organization.

Problem is, we NEED Congress.

Term limits would be a great way to cut down on their corruption.

Won't happen, though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leaf Aricsun
Feb 2011
17,276
6,251
Boise, ID
Unions were good for workers back in the day.
I find this statement far too broad, subjective, arbitrary and forever-arguable, and it's what unions and Democrats will always proclaim. Unions engaged (or tried to) in these same types of tactics "back in the day."

In this example, the ILWU would have insisted at every step (and probably insists to this day) that its actions were "good for workers," even though those actions 1) were illegal, 2) resulted in the employer abandoning the entire port facility, and 3) resulted in an almost 9-figure penalty against the union that could bankrupt it. "Good for workers?" They will always argue so. Was it really? No. Tactics like these (secondary boycotts, slowdowns, strikes, sabotage, etc.), which hold employers hostage, are economic warfare, and I'd contend these tactics are literally never good for any domestic workers, ever. Good for workers in other countries which might receive jobs from firms fleeing our country, maybe. But never good for our country or its workers.

I think what we should consider "good for workers" is legislation that clamps down across the board on employment-related practices that are legitimately abusive, coercive, and manipulative of their workers who are just trying to do the job that was offered to them in good faith in exchange for the compensation they accepted.

There are plenty of workplace laws in place to protect workers.
The law also needs to protect employers in situations like this, and that was the type of law that ILWU violated, resulting in its $90+ million penalty. If you were an employer and two unions were fighting with each other demanding that you employ its workers instead of the other union's workers, and that whichever one(s) you didn't choose for the work promised to sabotage your business economically, guaranteeing you'll incur massive financial losses, what would you do? How could you function as a business in this country if this situation were allowed?

Well, every Democratic candidate for President is promising that unions should be able to put employers in these types of situations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: johnflesh
Aug 2018
4,539
7,655
Vancouver
Unions were good for workers back in the day.

Now...not so much.

There are plenty of workplace laws in place to protect workers.

The so called "leadership" of many large unions is so corrupt nowadays...

I worked for many years in private sector and many years in public service.

There are mountains of regulations and laws to protect non-union workers. Private employers follow none of them. They just ignore them. They know that their employees can't afford to complain, even if they eventually win a complaint.

I remember one place booked 1 hour long unpaid meetings on Sundays. Expecting people to commute in on a day off, unpaid, for one hour. In the middle of the day.

A few of us wrote an anonymous letter saying that's not acceptable. The owner found out who wrote it and laid off every one of us. Then didn't give out the legally required record of employment for months - the one that is absolutely mandatory for employers to give out so that people can get EI. People lost their cars. Renters had to move back in with their parents. We all filed complaints that took a year , but the complaints would only end up being warnings or penalties for the business. No benefit to us. The worst you can ever do is get them punished. It doesn't help you.

I ultimately decided that the only possible way I could reliably support a family is to either own a business or work for the government.

That's a ridiculous conclusion to have to reach. It's sad. There's other jobs I could have taken. Other fields I'd actually be better suited to. But I have to do what's best for reliably raising two kids to adulthood without lurching crises to crises until some execs finally raid my pension and turf me to the street in order to pay the 3.5m signing bonus of the new exec in charge of bankruptcy liquidation. Because the owner saw a tax loophole in closing us down.
 
Oct 2019
2,390
825
Earth
The problem with unions is that they often start for noble reasons, ensuring that workers get a fair share of a companies profits as payment, that conditions are good, etc.

The problem comes, like we saw in Detroit, where the unions end up so powerful that they end up forcing the company into a position that the options are to cave and give up the costs, OR to pack up and find a cheaper place for labor.
 
Feb 2011
17,276
6,251
Boise, ID
The problem with unions is that they often start for noble reasons, ensuring that workers get a fair share of a companies profits as payment, that conditions are good, etc.

The problem comes, like we saw in Detroit, where the unions end up so powerful that they end up forcing the company into a position that the options are to cave and give up the costs, OR to pack up and find a cheaper place for labor.
The problems can get a lot deeper and more complex than that. Look what's been going on in France, where they've allowed public sector unions to literally sabotage the basic public services the public relies on as an attempt to coercively trump the powers of the duly and democratically elected government itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Logically Left
Apr 2012
62,894
48,858
Englewood,Ohio
The problem with unions is that they often start for noble reasons, ensuring that workers get a fair share of a companies profits as payment, that conditions are good, etc.

The problem comes, like we saw in Detroit, where the unions end up so powerful that they end up forcing the company into a position that the options are to cave and give up the costs, OR to pack up and find a cheaper place for labor.
The Unions did not kill GM, the blanking CEO named Wagoner down $24 million a year, catered to the stock holders, did not listen to his Designer’s and Engineer’s, shoved junk out the door to meet production.

The Unions saved both wages and pensions of workers. As I have stated numerous times on this board I still pay Union dues because of what they did.

Go vote for Republicans but do not come complaining around here when you lose your job or health care. You are not left, nor logical in that post!
 
Feb 2011
17,276
6,251
Boise, ID
I worked for many years in private sector and many years in public service.

There are mountains of regulations and laws to protect non-union workers. Private employers follow none of them.
That is absolutely absurd. See, this is why I can't respect most pro-union liberals. They say absolutely absurd and unsupportable BS like this, which characterizes all employers as villains.

Here's a list of just some employment-related laws. Explain to us with a straight face, plus cited evidence, that private sector employers follow none of these laws:

Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
Child Labor Laws
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Retaliation and Whistleblower Laws
Title VII (Race, National Origin, Religion, and Sex discrimination)
Wage and Hour Laws
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act)